Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO480.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 05:56:42
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #480
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 23 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 480

Today's Topics:
                         Boom!  Whoosh......
               Commercial mining activities on the moon
                     Crazy? or just Imaginitive?
   DC-X: Choice of a New Generation (was Re: SSRT Roll-Out Speech)
                   Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.
                       How many read sci.space?
          Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts. (2 msgs)
                               Level 5?
                        Moonbase race (2 msgs)
         PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST (2 msgs)
                           Proton/Centaur?
                Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)
                    Sunrise/ sunset times (2 msgs)
                         Vandalizing the sky.
               Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.
 Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents? (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: 22 Apr 1993 17:58:40 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boom!  Whoosh......
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
>+
>Pageos and two Echo balloons were inflated with a substance
>which expanded in vacuum.

Called "gas".

>Once inflated the substance was no longer
>needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
>This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no
>disastrous deflation.

The balloons were in sufficiently low orbit that they experienced
some air resistance.  When they were finally punctured, this
preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain
a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to
catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards
that remained were easily visible for some time before
reentry, though no longer useful as a passive transponder.

The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:38:33 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Seriously though. If you were to ask the British government
>whether their colonisation efforts in the Americas were cost
>effective, what answer do you think you'd get? What if you asked
>in 1765, 1815, 1865, 1915 and 1945 respectively? ;-)

What do you mean? Are you saying they thought the effort was
profitable or that the money was efficiently spent (providing max
value per money spent)?

I think they would answer yes on ballance to both questions. Exceptions
would be places like the US from the French Indian War to the end of
the US Revolution.

But even after the colonies revolted or where given independance the
British engaged in very lucrative trading with the former colonies.
Five years after the American Revolution England was still the largest
US trading partner.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------55 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 19:37:35 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 04:54:03 GMT, [e-mail] said:

nsmca> So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but
nsmca> so was Wilbur and Orville Wright, and quite a few others..

This is a common misconception.  There was nothing "off the wall"
about the Wright Brothers.  They were in correspondance with a number
of other experimenters (Octave Chanute, Lillienthal, etc), they flew
models, they had a wind tunnel.  In short, they were quite mainstream
and were not regarded as odd or eccentric by the community.

I suggest you read The Bishop's Boys or the biography by Harry Gates?
Combs?  (I can never remember which it is--the guy that had the FBOs
and owned Learjet for a while).  These are both in print and easily
obtainable.  The Bishop's Boys is in trade paperback, even.

Even better would be the multi-volume set of the Wrights' writings,
but this is out of print, rare, and hideously expensive.



--
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: 22 Apr 93 12:42:18
From: Brian Yamauchi <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X: Choice of a New Generation (was Re: SSRT Roll-Out Speech)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1r4uos$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jordan Katz) writes:

>           Speech Delivered by Col. Simon P. Worden,
>            The Deputy for Technology, SDIO
>
>    Most of you, as am I, are "children of the 1960's."  We grew
>up in an age of miracles -- Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles,
>nuclear energy, computers, flights to the moon.  But these were
>miracles of our parent's doing.

>                          Speech by Pete Worden
>          Delivered Before the U.S. Space Foundation Conference

>     I'm embarrassed when my generation is compared with the last
>generation -- the giants of the last great space era, the 1950's
>and 1960's.  They went to the moon - we built a telescope that
>can't see straight.  They soft-landed on Mars - the least we
>could do is soft-land on Earth!

Just out of curiousity, how old is Worden?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi            Case Western Reserve University
[e-mail]    Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 16:23:30 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral
>exploration.
>Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..

If raw materials where to cost enough that getting them from space would
be cost effective then the entire world economy would colapse long
before the space mines could be built.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------55 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 18:46:50 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: How many read sci.space?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dillon Pyron) writes:


>There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah,
>this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.

Yes, and I do everyone else.  Why, you may wonder, don't I do 'Fred'?
Well, that would just be too *obvious*, wouldn't it?  Oh yeah, this
isn't my real name, either.  I'm actually Elvis.  Or maybe a lemur; I
sometimes have difficulty telling which is which.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 15:07:09 GMT
From: Joe Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space

Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

This discussion is better followed in talk.politics.space
Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain
[phone]        FAX [phone] or -0098

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 15:35:42 GMT
From: Greg Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <1r6aqr$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
#The better question  should be.
#Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding
#to support these kind of ongoing science missions.

Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will
changing them to a seperate agency help anything?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 13:54:02 CDT
From: Bret Wingert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Level 5?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> Henry Spencer writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 ...
>>>Level 5?  Out of how many? ...
>>
>>... Also keep in mind that it was
>>*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
>>through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
>>Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
>>did the whole process by hand...
>
>I think this is a little inaccurate, based on Feynman's account of the
>software-development process *before* the standdown.  Fred is basically
>correct:  no sophisticated tools, just a lot of effort and painstaking
>care.  But they got this one right *before* Challenger; Feynman cited
>the software people as exemplary compared to the engine people.  (He
>also noted that the software people were starting to feel management
>pressure to cut corners, but hadn't had to give in to it much yet.)
>
>Among other things, the software people worked very hard to get things
>right for the major pre-flight simulations, and considered a failure
>during those simulations to be nearly as bad as an in-flight failure.
>As a result, the number of major-simulation failures could be counted
>on one hand, and the number of in-flight failures was zero.
>
>As Fred mentioned elsewhere, this applies only to the flight software.
>Software that runs experiments is typically mostly put together by the
>experimenters, and gets nowhere near the same level of Tender Loving Care.
>(None of the experimenters could afford it.)
>--
>All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry
>
News-Software: UReply 3.1
X-X-From: [e-mail] (Bret Wingert)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
            <[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]> Henry Spencer writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 ...
>>>Level 5?  Out of how many? ...
>>
>>... Also keep in mind that it was
>>*not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather
>>through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the
>>Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and
>>did the whole process by hand...
>
>I think this is a little inaccurate, based on Feynman's account of the
>software-development process *before* the standdown.  Fred is basically
>correct:  no sophisticated tools, just a lot of effort and painstaking
>care.  But they got this one right *before* Challenger; Feynman cited
>the software people as exemplary compared to the engine people.  (He
>also noted that the software people were starting to feel management
>pressure to cut corners, but hadn't had to give in to it much yet.)
>
>As Fred mentioned elsewhere, this applies only to the flight software.
>Software that runs experiments is typically mostly put together by the
>experimenters, and gets nowhere near the same level of Tender Loving Care.
 ========================================================================
A couple of points on this thread.

1. We have been using our processes since way before Challenger.  Challenger
   in and of it self did not uncover flaws.

2. What Mr. Spencer says is by and large true.  We have a process that is
   not dependent on "sophisticated tools"  (CASE tools?).  However, tools
   cannot fix a bad process.  Also, tool support for HAL/S (the Shuttle
   Language) is somewhat limited.

3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team.
   This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.

4. Feel free to call me if you or your organization is interested in more info
   on our software development process.

Bret Wingert


(713)-282-7534
FAX: [phone]


Bret Wingert


(713)-282-7534
FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:16:24 GMT
From: Marvin Batty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moonbase race
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited
>>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately,
>>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several.
>
>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida?
>
Why use a ground launch pad. It is entirely posible to launch from altitude.
This was what the Shuttle was originally intended to do! It might be seriously
cheaper.

Also, what about bio-engineered CO2 absorbing plants instead of many LOX bottles?
Stick 'em in a lunar cave and put an airlock on the door.

--
****************************************************************************
                  Marvin Batty - [e-mail]
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

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

Date: 22 Apr 1993 19:29:39 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moonbase race
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the
>>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida?
>
>Why would you want to do that? The goal is to do it cheaper (remember,
>this isn't government). Instead of leasing an expensive launch pad,
>just use a SSTO and launch from a much cheaper facility.

Allen, sometimes I think you're OK.  And sometimes you tend to rashly leap into
making statement without thinking them out.

Wanna guess which today?

You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know
of a private Titan pad?



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:31:59 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.aci.planetary,alt.astrology

The only ether I see here is the stuff you must
have been breathing before you posted...

--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
[e-mail]|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

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

Date: 22 Apr 93 14:15:38 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

They must be shipping that good Eau Clair acid to California now.

Tom Freebairn

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:09:31 GMT
From: thomas hancock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proton/Centaur?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

[e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
The Centaur is controlled technology..
State Dept will not allow it to be used outside of US. Sorry.
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:
>>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
>>What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
>>than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?

>I haven't seen any speculation about it. But, the Salyut KB (Design Bureau)
>was planning a new LH/LOX second stage for the Proton which would boost
>payload to LEO from about 21000 to 31500 kg. (Geostationary goes from
>2600 kg. (Gals launcher version) to 6000 kg.. This scheme was competing
>with the Energia-M last year and I haven't heard which won, except now
>I recently read that the Central Specialized KB was working on the
>successor to the Soyuz booster which must be the Energia-M. So the early
>results are Energia-M won, but this is a guess, nothing is very clear in
>Russia. I'm sure if Salyut KB gets funds from someone they will continue
>their development.

>The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton
>is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D
>which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about
>launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which
>are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things
>up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile
>thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now.
>Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know
>how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while
>bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track
>and erected on the pad?

>They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads
>(unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course
>any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the
>US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political
>problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention.

>Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
>Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
>Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 15:54:11 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle oxygen (was Budget Astronaut)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1qn044$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>I thought that under emergency conditions,  the STS  can
>put down at any good size Airport.  IF it could take a C-5 or a
>747, then it can take an orbiter.   You just need a VOR/TAC
>
>I don't know if they need ILS.

DFW was designed with the STS in mind (which really mean very little).  Much of
their early PR material had scenes with a shuttle landing and two or three
others pulled up to gates.  I guess they were trying to stress how advanced the
airport was.

For Dallas types:  Imagine the fit Grapevine and Irving would be having if the
shuttle WAS landing at DFW. (For the rest, they are currently having some power
struggles between the airport and surrounding cities).
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
[e-mail]          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |

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

Date: 22 Apr 1993 15:54:18 GMT
From: Rouben Rostamian <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sunrise/ sunset times
Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.math,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph Wetstein) writes:
>
>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.

Here is a computation I did a long time ago that computes the length
of the daylight.  You should be able to convert the information here
to sunrise and sunset times.

--
Rouben Rostamian                          Telephone: [phone]
Department of Mathematics and Statistics  e-mail:
University of Maryland Baltimore County   bitnet: [e-mail]
Baltimore, MD 21228, USA                  internet: [e-mail]
======================================================================
Definitions:

z = the tilt of the axis of the planet away from the normal to its
orbital plane.  In case of the Earth z is about 23.5 degrees, I think.
I do not recall the exact value.  In case of Uranus, z is almost
90 degrees.

u = latitude of the location where the length of the day is measured.
Paris is at about 45 degrees.  North pole is at 90.

a = angular position of the planet around the sun.  As a goes from
0 to 360 degrees, the planet makes a full circle around the sun.
The spring equinox occurs at a=0.

L = daylight fraction = (duration of daylight)/(duration of a full day).
On the equator (u=0) L is always 1/2.  Near the north pole (u=90 degrees)
L is sometimes one and sometimes zero, depending on the time of the year.

Computation:
Define the auxiliary angles p and q by:
sin p = sin a sin z
cos q = h ( tan u tan p ),       (0 < q < 180 degrees)

Conclusion:
L = q / 180   (if q is measured in degrees)
L = q / pi    (if q is measured in radians)

Wait!  But what is h?
The cutoff function h is defined as follows:

h (s) = s    if  |s| < 1
      = 1    if   s > 1
      = -1   if   s < 1

As an interesting exercise, plot L versus a.   The graph will shows
how the length of the daylight varies with the time of the year.
Experiment with various choices of latitudes and tilt angles.
Compare the behavior of the function at locations above and below
the arctic circle.

--
Rouben Rostamian                          Telephone: [phone]
Department of Mathematics and Statistics  e-mail:
University of Maryland Baltimore County   bitnet: [e-mail]
Baltimore, MD 21228, USA                  internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 18:06:30 GMT
From: "N. Shirlene Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sunrise/ sunset times
Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.math,sci.space

[e-mail] (Joseph Wetstein) writes:


>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>to compute sunrise and sunset times.

Would you mind posting the responses you get?
I am also interested, and there may be others.

Thanks,

N. Shirlene Pearson
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 19:56:11 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>
>Would they buy it, given that it's a _lot_ more expensive, and not
>much more impressive, than putting a large set of several-km
>inflatable billboards in LEO (or in GEO, visible 24 hours from your
>key growth market). I'll do _that_ for only $5bn (and the changes of
>identity).

    I've heard of sillier things, like a well-known utility company
wanting to buy an 'automated' boiler-cleaning system which uses as many
operators as the old system, and which rumour has it costs three million
more per unit. Automation is more 'efficient' although by what scale they are
not saying...

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 16:48:01 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.

    Mind you, my father was a vacuum-tube fan in the 60s (Switched
to solid-state in the mid-seventies and then abruptly died; no doubt
there's a lesson in that) and his account could have been biased.

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 16:13:01 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Schaefer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gene Wright) writes:
>|> > With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints
>|> > by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about
>|> > that might just work.
>|> >
>|> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation
>|> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year.
>|> > Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin
>|> > to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!
>|> >
>|> > --
>|> >   [e-mail] (Gene Wright)
>|> > theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville
>|> ====
>|> If that were true, I'd go for it.. I have a few friends who we could pool our
>|> resources and do it.. Maybe make it a prize kind of liek the "Solar Car Race"
>|> in Australia..
>|> Anybody game for a contest!
>|>
>|> ==
>|> Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked
>
>
>Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the
>feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!
>

Feasability study??  What a wimp!!  While you are studying, others would be
doing.  Too damn many engineers doing way too little engineering.

"He who sits on his arse sits on his fortune"  - Sir Richard Francis Burton
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
[e-mail]          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:27:53 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Depends. If you assume the existance of a working SSTO like DC, on billion
>$$ would be enough to put about a quarter million pounds of stuff on the
>moon. If some of that mass went to send equipment to make LOX for the
>transfer vehicle, you could send a lot more. Either way, its a lot
>more than needed.

>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is
>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.

But Allen, if you can assume the existence of an SSTO there is no need
to have the contest in the first place.  I would think that what we
want to get out of the contest is the development of some of these
'cheaper' ways of doing things; if they already exist, why flush $1G
just to get someone to go to the Moon for a year?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 480
------------------------------