Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO441.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Fri,  9 Apr 93 05:31:42
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #441
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  9 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 441

Today's Topics:
  Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. (2 msgs)
                           Atlas revisited
                        Biosphere II (2 msgs)
                  Biosphere II >>IS<< a theme park.
                   DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test
                   lie low netters! UFO's want you!
                                 NASP
                    Plans, absence therof (2 msgs)
                  Portable Small Ground Station?dir
             Question- Why is SSTO  Single Stage (2 msgs)
                          space food sticks
                      SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93
Talking to Boeing management about SSTO type stuff from a shareholder perspective.
               Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign
             What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
       What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? (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: 8 Apr 93 10:58:05 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q09m1$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> |What we need, at this point, is to build an orbital demonstrator.  It
> |need not be a full-scale transport prototype, and indeed it need not be
> |manned, but it must go into orbit repeatedly.  This is the final proof
> |that the approach is workable, and it is a step we will be ready to
> |take after the DC-X tests (if we aren't already -- a debatable point).
> |There is no need to waste time and money repeating the preliminaries
> |yet again.
>
>
This is not the point.  Note that I did not specifically mention the DC
program.  They do not mention the DC program.  This (1st stage) work is work
that to my knowledge has never been done.  And that it to ascertain the
extent (as much as possible) of the commercial market in a fashion that
will allow them to go to wall street for financing.

The vehicle design comes from the requirements of the commercial market.
If for instance, it turns out that the driving market will be tourism, and
advertizing, then maybe the vehicle need only 5000lbs to LEO (as opposed
to the SDIO 20kLBS)  If, on the other hand, it turns out that the market
driver will be Solar Power Satellites (SPS), then it may be that the vehicle
needs to have 40,000 or more to LEO.

If it turns out that 20klbs is the right payload, and DC works, then they may
may need no demonstration phase.

This is not to say that DC should not be built.  It is a good demonstrater,
and it will help when these guys go to wall street, and say, "fund me", as it
will have shown that it is possible to build the vehicle, but that is only
1/2 of the equation, wall street has to know not only that you can build it,
but also that you CAN SELL IT.

It seems to me that this is an intrinsically different approach than DC, and it
is not threatening to DC, and it can be run parallel to DC...

I'm all for it.  Or is there something sinister here that I have missed.

        John.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 18:47:18 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>This is not the point.  Note that I did not specifically mention the DC
>program.  They do not mention the DC program.  This (1st stage) work is work
>that to my knowledge has never been done.

It has been done. Several times. There are dozens of reports and studies
on the launch market for the next ten years or so. Dozens more on the
potential for new markets.

We are past the point of doing any more studies. We need to bild hardware
now and see if it works.

>The vehicle design comes from the requirements of the commercial market.

DC is compatible with 95%+ of the world launch market. Whatever this
consortium proposes it MUST be very similar to DC or nobody will
even consider investing in it.

>If for instance, it turns out that the driving market will be tourism, and
>advertizing, then maybe the vehicle need only 5000lbs to LEO (as opposed
>to the SDIO 20kLBS)

Nobody is going to invest in a launcher which doesn't serve an existing
market. (Before you bring up Pegasus, remember that the government MADE
a market for it).

>If, on the other hand, it turns out that the market
>driver will be Solar Power Satellites (SPS), then it may be that the vehicle
>needs to have 40,000 or more to LEO.

Maybe cheap access to space will bring about the need for such a
vehicle. Much as the DC-3 produced demand for the 747 eventually.
Let's build the DC-3 of launchers first.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you where my husband I would poision your coffee!" |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you where my wife, I would drink it."            |
+----------------------69 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 93 13:26:40 EDT
From: Jerry Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas revisited

Thanks for the interesting discussion about using pressurized fuel tanks
to keep the Atlas booster rigid.  I had read some about this in Kenneth
Gatland's 'Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology' but still have
a question.  This my be blatantly obvious to some but, how does the
tank remain pressurized while the engines are consuming fuel?  Or,
perhaps they remain rigid enough until the booster is well out of the
atmosphere?

Any enlightenment is appreciated.

Jerry
Who plays a statistician at work not a rocket scientist.
[e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 12:40:42 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In <1q09ud$[e-mail]> Pat writes:
>>Why is everyone being so critical of B2?
> Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science.

It seems to me, that it's sorta a large engineering project more
then a science project.  Rather then analyzing every component,
they are just going and building a large functioning machine.

Given the scope,  what's teh problem?   If it runs in balance great.



|>self sustain.  to date,  it seems they are having O2 balance
|>problems.  It's like a farm.  if the crops grow it's a success.
|  Hardly. I'd imagine that a farmer would really like to know how
|to repeat his success. The problem with B2, is that whether it
|succeeds or not, they won't really be able to explain it. To that
|extent, it's not very good science.


I guess you have never been on a farm much.

These guys do a lot of things,  that are based on empirical observation
of highly complex multi-variate phenomena.

B2 is not bench science,  but rather a large scale attempt to
re-create a series of micro-ecologies.   what's so eveil about this?
Given it's not funded by NSF,  why should it be held to peer-review
methods.

Also,  the more i read, the more I realize that not all peers agree.

If you don't like it,  be a little skeptical, and say.
"It's ed basses money,  and could be better applied elsewhere".

I don't think that one little group of PhD's are the keepers of
holy light and doctrine.  THis is science, not religion.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 18:18:14 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

>From article <1q09ud$[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Pat):
>>
>> Why is everyone being so critical of B2?
>>
Would you spend a couple years in a closed space station (or closed seafloor
station for the matter) constructed according to the principles or results
of B2?

The details are not detailed or reliable enough for verification or refutation.
Many millions of dollars down the toilet.

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

Date: 8 Apr 93 11:09:33 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Biosphere II >>IS<< a theme park.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
> In <1q09ud$[e-mail]> Pat writes:
>>Why is everyone being so critical of B2?
>  Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science.
>>It's ed Basses money,  why should we care.
>>If he spent it on Cocaine and hookers, no-one would care.
>  If he'd said he was building B2 as a theme park, no-one would care.

Um, does anybody know if it really >>IS<< a theme park?  At $6.00 per head
to look through the lobby, and more to buy lunch, and T-Shirts, and ECO-
correct books,  with only $10mil into it, and all of the publicity it has
generated, it might have shown a profit by now even.

Hell, if I were anywhere near it (in AZ), I would probably take my family by
and pay the bucks to have a look around.


            John.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:35:52 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q0ail$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>    Needs a door in the "hot" part of the structure, a door whose
>>    operation is mission-critical.
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Why is it mission-critical, if there are the three other alternatives...

It is unlikely that an operational craft would be equipped for all four.
The idea is to pick the one that works best.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 19:26:35 GMT
From: Tom Van Flandern <[e-mail]>
Subject: lie low netters! UFO's want you!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Donald H. Locker) writes [referring to UFO abductions]:

> I noticed that Tom Van Flandern was absent for a while.  How about it,
> Tom?  Will you tell us about it in your book, or is that too far afield
> for the current tome?  (BTW, how is your book coming?)

     I'll tell you now:  Aliens didn't like what I was saying about solar
system origins, so for the past week they have kept my postings from
reaching the net.

     And that hard disk crash that kept me off the net for a few weeks last
month -- also caused by aliens, you can be sure.

     When they last abducted me, I was warned against going ahead with my
book and revealing so many secrets.  They said I would be moved ahead of
Salman Rushdie on the global hit list if I published despite their warning.

     Don't let this get around, but the book aliens don't want you to read
will be out next month.  Details later -- I think I hear them coming back!
     -|Tom|-

--
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / [e-mail]
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.

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

From: Ricardo Belmar <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP
Newsgroups: sci.space

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 15:30:17 GMT
Lines: 10
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

This may not be the right newsgroup in which to ask about the
NAtional Aero-Space Plane but... I'm writing a paper on NASP
and I'm looking for just about any information anyone would
like to share, even opinionos about the project.

E-mail me any responses or just post them here.

Ricardo Belmar
[e-mail]
University of Virginia

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:50:40 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plans, absence therof
Newsgroups: sci.space

The Hatch Act is designed to keep civilian employees of the government
out of partisan politics.  We are not allowed to campaign for, donate to,
or advocate any candidates for partisan offices or support parties in
any way.  This is both for our protection and for the protection of the
parties;  we can't be pressured to make "voluntary" donations of time
and money and incumbents can't have an army of ready-made campaign
workers.

We are allowed to involve ourselves in non-partisan politics, like
school boards, municipal offices, etc.

The same rules apply to immediate family members.

Outside employment must be approved by the agency; it can't be (or
look like) a conflict of interest.  For example, I can teach
engineering at the local college in the evenings, but I'd never be
allowed to work nights at McDonnell.

We can be paid for speaking and writing only if there is no nexus
between the subject and our work.  I can take money for writing
romantic novels but I can't take money for speaking about aircraft
stability and control.  (Not that I'd write a romantic novel; murder
mysteries are more my style.)

We are very limited in our investments, too, because of the same
conflict-of-interest issue.  Again, there must be a nexus; I avoid
high-tech stocks but I can put money into healthcare stocks, someone
from HHD would have to do the opposite.

All of these rules are there to ensure that the public can be assured
that civil servants will not be motivated by issues other than the
ones at hand.  We shouldn't make decisions based on what our
investments will do or what our politics are or any other extraneous
issues and these rules are in place to make it absolutely obvious what
the limits are.

We are also enjoined from things that appear to be conflicts of
interest, even if they fit the rules.  This is because perception is
as important as legality.

There are other rules of behavior that have to do with bringing the
government into disrepute.  These things have to be pretty flagrant,
but civil servants can be dismissed for behavior off the job if it
would cast a bad light on the government.  Examples of this include
sexual scandals and extremist groups.  Persistantly not paying debts
qualifies, too.  (This isn't just the Feds--in California, teachers
can lose their credentials if they're convicted of drunken driving.)

The whole point is that public employees are held to a higher standard
than are private employees.  We all know this.  It tends to make us
somewhat more circumspect.

It certainly holds me back from being perfectly frank in this
forum--I'm not going to put my career on the line for some bozo to
complain to his congressman when I call him an idiot.  Just remember,
you're fighting someone with one hand tied behind her back.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:38:07 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plans, absence therof
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>[Descussing the Hatch Act]
>This is both for our protection and for the protection of the parties;  we
>can't be pressured to make "voluntary" donations of time  and money and
>incumbents can't have an army of ready-made campaign workers.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That only applies to the executive branch. Congress, in its wisdom, has
seen fit to exempt itself from this law. This gives every Represntative
and Senator his or her own personal crew of campaign workers paid for
by you and I.

>It certainly holds me back from being perfectly frank in this...
>Just remember, you're fighting someone with one hand tied behind her back.

But your still more than a match for anybody around.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you where my husband I would poision your coffee!" |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you where my wife, I would drink it."            |
+----------------------69 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 00:22:09 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Portable Small Ground Station?dir
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>How difficult would it be to set up your own ground station?
>>>
>>> Ground station for *what*?  At one extreme, some of the amateur-radio
>>> satellites have sometimes been reachable with hand-held radios.  At the
>>> other, nothing you can do in your back yard will let you listen in on
>>> Galileo.  Please be more specific.
>>
>>SPECIFIC:
>>Basically to be able to do the things the big dadies can do.. Monitor, and
>>control if need be the Shuttle...
>>
>>Such as the one in Australia and such....
>
>The Shuttle isn't controlled from the ground, and it's communications
>with the ground is mainly through the TDRS system. It doesn't take
>a huge antenna to gather the signals relayed by TDRS, but it does
>take complex and expensive equipment to demultiplex the data streams.
>Everything is transmitted as a multiplexed multimegabaud digital data
>stream. The high speed demultiplexers are beyond ordinary amateur
>reach at this time, though prices are falling rapidly. More importantly,
>NASA doesn't release specs on what the channels are, so you still
>probably couldn't make sense of what you receive.
>
>Ordinary Shuttle suit communications takes place on UHF, and when
>conditions are just right you can monitor that directly with rather
>simple equipment, similar to what amateurs use in the SAREX experiments.
>Shuttle also has ordinary flight radios for use during landings, but you
>have to be line of sight to receive those.
>
>The DSN stations are different, and aren't used to monitor Shuttle.
>These stations use huge antennas to gather in the very faint signals
>from distant probes. They use advanced LNAs, low noise amplifiers,
>and computer enhancement to pick up signals that are so faint that
>a flea scratching himself at 2000 km would have more power. You have
>no hope of duplicating them on an amateur budget.
>
I would not be quite so extreme in my statements about DSN.  The Low
Noise Amps (LNAs) are quite expensive but you can do some significant
enhancement on any PC if you know the encoding schemes and are willing
to run significantly less than real time.

You can also create an antenna field (small cheap antennas) and rebuild
the signal using amplitude and phase combining.  The theory actually
allows an awful lot from spacial diversity and block coding.  Your targets will
be significantly limited by your system and receiver noise, but above a
certain threshold I think you could scrape up the energy and recover bits.

If anybody cares to correct me, feel free - I've only got two courses in
Comm Theory and a little experience with SATCOM (TDRSS).

                                     Karl Pitt ([e-mail])

>Gary
>--
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 12:33:08 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO  Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

 I think the FAQ  will address your questions.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:47:50 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO  Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>    My question is as follows.  As I understand it the main theme behind
>SSTO is quick, cheap, and good.  The idea is to get a operational launch
>vehicle designed and tested as quickly as possible, and then to have a fast
>and cheap operation cycle.  But why use only one stage?

Because there is no need for more than one, and not having any parts fall
off vastly simplifies a number of things, including range safety, intact
abort, and the turnaround cycle.

People built two-stage airliners once.  Nobody bothers any more.  It's
just not worth the extra performance.

>... However, we pay a very high penalty on
>payload capability.

*SO* *WHAT*???

This is the big mistake that almost every launch system currently in
existence has made:  shooting for maximum performance instead of minimum
operational cost.

If you don't like the size of the payload, either scale up the vehicle
(this is not a military missile that has to fit in a predefined silo)
or fly it more often and assemble in orbit (the largest payload that
absolutely must go up in one piece is a human with life support).

>    I would think that by applying all the concepts of SSTO to a double
>stager we would get nearly the same price and time performance, but with
>higher payload capabilities.

Developing two different vehicles is going to be nearly as cheap as one?
I have my doubts.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 12:44:57 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: space food sticks
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (RODGER CLIFF) writes:
|individually packaged.  My mom bought one box of each flavor ( and never
|bought any more.)  Probably one of those things (like disco, bell-bottoms,
>leisure suits, etc.) that should not be resurrected.


Nothing was as bad as 1-2-3 Jello.  That made space food sticks look
like Spicy Lo Mein.

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 17:35:45 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q14jn$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dave McKissock) wrote:
>
>
> In a previous article, [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) says:
>
> >In article <1phv59$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Where are the meetings?
> >>
> >> pat
> >
> >Goldin said during the press briefing that they would be in Crystal City by
> >the beltway in DC
> >
> You sure about that Andy. I think Pat was asking where the meeting
> of the blue ribbon advisory panel was going to meet on April 22. This
> meeting is supposed to be open, although by "open" NASA may just mean
> that folks in the press are invited. I'm not actually sure whether
> tourists or folks off the street can walk in & join the meeting.
>
> Anyhow, I haven't yet heard a specific place for the meeting. Yes,
> the redesign activity is housed in Crystal City, but that doesn't
> necessarily mean the 4/22 meeting will be there.


I asked around....all I could get was DC....which means probably
headquarters.

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

Date: 8 Apr 93 11:41:21 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Talking to Boeing management about SSTO type stuff from a shareholder perspective.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Well, I appear to be at it again.

I just got my shareholder package from Boeing, and I want to go to the
meeting.  But since I went last year, I know that they have a question
and answer period from the shareholders.

Now, nothing REALLY gets done here, but I figure that there ought to be a
way to ask a question/make an accusation/make a request about some kind of
SSTO vehicle program from boeing in such a way, that the people there will
at least have to think about it.  (Especially since they video the meeting,
there will be something in the corporate record) And, yes, I expect to
be dismissed at the meeting, with "Well, we are studying that, and if in
the future it looks promising, then we will start a program, blah, blah, blah"

So, I need to be prepared with a followon question, for after I have been
dismissed.

My intent is to make sure that management knows that there is shareholder
support for at least looking at this on their own.

So, what is the question that will have the most impact on the corporate
management?  What should I say after getting the management doubletalk?

            John.

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 17:37:31 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1pviqp$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) wrote:
>
>
> THe article also mentions that Panel is looking to overhaul
> the station management structure.
On their ability to accomplish this......I'll believe it when I see it!

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

Date: 8 Apr 93 13:31:20 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <dxb105.734155421@aries>, dxb105@aries (David Bofinger) writes:
>[e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:
>
>> [The Soviet Union] could have beaten us if either:
>> * Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back,
>
>Didn't they lose their top rocket scientist in a car crash or
>something?

Or something.  Sergei Korolyev (always referred to as the "Chief Designer" when
he was alive -- i.e. his name wasn't public until after his death) died just
before the Soyuz program started flying.  His death was due to natural causes,
although it's likely his health had suffered due to his years in the Gulag
(during the '30s and '40s, I think).  He was the guiding force behind nearly
all of the Soviet Union's spectacular space "firsts" (satellite, moon impact,
man in space, space walk, etc.).  Almost immediately after his death, the
program started to run into trouble.  (Komarov died on Soyuz 1, the N-1 super
booster repeatedly failed, and so on.)  In my opinion, Korolyev was undoubtedly
a fine design engineer, possibly on the level of von Braun, who did an
excellent job of accomplishing all he did given the economic and political
situation in which he had to work.  It's likely the Soviet space program would
have done better had he not died.  I don't believe they would have been able to
beat the US to the moon, however -- I recall reading the Soviets thought the
earliest they could land on the moon was 1971 or so, and they were counting on
US setbacks to have any chance of getting there first.  With more luck, they
may have been able to steal some of the US thunder by doing such missions as a
manned circumlunar flight or an unmanned sample return (two missions they came
awfully close to pulling off before Apollo 8 and Apollo 11, respectively).
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:49:38 GMT
From: Eric H Seale <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>I saw a prog where you land an automated space craft on mars.  Its basically a
>feul tank.  It then cycles the atmosphere and via some simple chemical reaction
>ends up with rocket feul - a tank full after 9 months (not sure of time scale).
>
>Then you send the manned expedition and they pump the feul thats waiting into
>their ship and use it to get home.  ie could exploit the atmosphere for rocket
>feul greatly reducing payload for any ships = big bucks.

I didn't see this program, but the Martian atmosphere is largely made up
of carbon dioxide -- tough to get much fuel out of that.  There was some
talk a while back of landing a nuclear-powered ship on Mars (a ways into
the future) to electrolyze CO2 into CO & O2.  Then, you "burn" the
carbon monoxide in your rocket engine for thrust:

    2CO + O2 => 2CO2

But, keep in mind that burning carbon monoxide won't give you much
thrust...

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:58:22 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:
>talk a while back of landing a nuclear-powered ship on Mars (a ways into
>the future) to electrolyze CO2 into CO & O2.  Then, you "burn" the
>carbon monoxide in your rocket engine for thrust:
>
>    2CO + O2 => 2CO2
>
>But, keep in mind that burning carbon monoxide won't give you much
>thrust...

Actually, it's not a bad fuel; it's just not a great one.  On the other
hand, Mars only has one-third of Earth's gravity, so you aren't under
quite so much pressure to find great fuels...

The big advantage of CO/O2 is that it relies only on materials -- CO2 --
that we know can be had in quantity at any point on Mars.  If you can
find a reliable source of hydrogen (e.g. water), or even bring it along,
it's easy enough to make CH4/O2, which is an excellent fuel combination.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 441
------------------------------