Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO564.TXT

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 93 06:25:45
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #564
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 13 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 564

Today's Topics:
           Check the FAQ! (was Re: looking for PLANET MAPS)
                 DC-X and publicity... is there any ?
Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? (2 msgs)
                       looking for PLANET MAPS
                Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons (2 msgs)
                                 test
                     Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

    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: 12 May 93 19:52:39 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Check the FAQ! (was Re: looking for PLANET MAPS)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
> [e-mail] (Tim "Spock" Larson) writes:
>
>> Where can I get topographical maps of Mars, Venus, other terrestrial
>>bodies?
[...]
> The other people to ask would be the US Geological Survey.  They have maps of
> just about everything.  Unfortunately, I do not have their address.

I see I need to follow up to the group.  As I told Tim by e-mail, this is
covered extensively in the FAQ for sci.space.

Also, check *Sky & Telescope* and the Planetary Society for nice Mars globes
and maps.

Magellan maps are available as large-scale GIFs but not really as paper
products yet, I believe.  About a year from now I expect we'll see a Venus
globe for a hundred bucks or less, from some map company or other.

There's an outfit in Germany that makes a Phobos globe for $500.  Ultimate
status symbol.  Looks like a lump of coal the size of a watermelon.

Phil Stooke will be lecturing at Fermilab next week, so I expect to be talking
about maps quite a bit soon!

Engineer of Hijacked Train:      Bill Higgins
"Is this a holdup?"
                                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Masked Gunman:
(Hesitates, looks at partner,    Bitnet: [e-mail]
looks at engineer again)         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"     Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 02:03:36 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X and publicity... is there any ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

But in the meantime write/call your Senator and Representative
and, if they serve on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Research
and Technology, ask them to support $100 million for SSRT funding
in the SDIO appropriation next week. If they do not, call Rep.
Pat Schroeder (the chair) with the same request. The congressional
switchboard is at 202 224-3121.

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

Date: 12 May 93 19:27:57 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> In article <1srgrd$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>
>>Because the diagrams of the DC-X flight profile appear more unconventional
>>than the shuttle's glide and land-it profile.
>
> BTW, there is another real advantage to the DC flight profile (VTVL). Since
> is will be fully reusable, it could (wiht minor mods) be used as a
> space tug and a lunar transit vehicle. This will allow it to be far more
> flexable and allow the design and production overhead costs to be amortized
> over more vehicles resulting is still lower costs.

Allen, could you please drop this goofy fantasy?  The engineering
needs of a space tug and a lunar transit vehicle are very different
from those of an SSTO rocket.  This is *not* a valid selling point for
DC-based SSTOs, in my not-so-humble opinion.

Yes, some components of DC-Y/DC-1/whatever might be useful in
designing other vehicles.  We can discuss this if you like. And, for a
crazy stunt, you *might* be able to gas up an empty DC-1 in orbit and
fly it to the Moon.  It sure ain't the way to build a cost-effective,
lightweight Moon bus or GEO-tug!

Bill Higgins                           | "I shop at the Bob and Ray
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Giant Overstocked Surplus
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | Warehouse in one convenient
Internet:       [e-mail]  | location and save money besides
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | being open every evening until 9."

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

Date: 12 May 93 19:45:48 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1srgrd$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
> Doesn't it strike you
> as unusual to propose reversing the attitude of large rocket and ignite
> its engines while in the atmosphere?  May be you guys trained as students
> with this particular picture in mind.

Yes, under Professor Heinlein.  (-: (-:

[quoting Allen Sherzer:]
>>The (DC-X) flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X
>>shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change.
>
> This is a pretty significant "if" isn't it?  Has this ever been tried on
> any vehicle?

A number of experimental VTOLs needed to do this.  The Ryan X-13 comes
to mind.

>

> I see shuttle as penicillin is.  A tremendous technical breakthrough
> for its time and it deserves respect for the achievement it is.

I agree with you on this, but it can't obviate the Shuttle's
shortcomings.

> It is
> unwise to couch criticism of the shuttle program in emotional terms.

Hey, what's Usenet for?  At least nobody has brought up Nazis or
Hitler yet. (Oops.)

> We cannot afford to confuse the US Congress with conflicting signals in
> the space community.

This is a scary notion.  I infer "People who don't agree with Ken
should keep quiet."  Ken, think about the implications of your
statement.

> Wouldn't it make more sense to compare DC-X to Delta, Titan, and Ariane?

Such comparisons have often been made, but you weren't around the last
time they were posted.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Captain's Log, Stardate 46682.4.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | The *Enterprise* is docked at the
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | Remlar Array, where it will undergo
Internet:       [e-mail]  | a routine procedure to eliminate
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | accumulated baryon particles."
("Baryon Bunnies" under the beds?)     | Hmm, my apartment needs this too.

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

Date: 13 May 1993 03:43 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: looking for PLANET MAPS
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Tim "Spock" Larson) writes:
>
> Where can I get topographical maps of Mars, Venus, other terrestrial
>bodies?

Try the USGS.  Their address is USGS Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80025.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Once a year, go someplace
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you've never been before.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 01:03:30 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

> [e-mail] writes:
>
> The most revealing comparison between Shuttle and Soyuz is cost. All
> other comparisons are apples and oranges.


        But just how do you make a comparison?  Rouble to dollar rates have
varied by a factor of 100 or more in recent years.  Is there any information
on the cost of a Soyuz and Shuttle payloads in terms of person-years of
effort?

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 May 1993 02:18:37 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ken Hayashida writes:


> Well, I am not sure how we should quantify the amount of mass that
> the shuttle or Soyuz delivers to orbit in order to compare the two.
> Since the mass of the orbiter is so much larger than the Soyuz, what is
> really the way to compare the two?

We should compare the payload mass. When you compare two cargo ships
(say tankers), do you care how much THEY weight or do you care how
much CARGO you can carry with them ?



> I would appreciate it if someone would tally the total mass RETURNED
> from orbit on a Soyuz vehicle versus the Shuttle.  I should have said
> that the shuttle has superior mass return capability.  Although some
> may argue that we don't want mass coming down from orbit. I think we
> do because we don't have a space station in order to leave material
> in orbit.


Shuttle has superior mass return capability, no argument here. Actually,
I think it is the only system with real payload return capability, since
it can grab a satelite and bring it back, and no other spacecraft can do
that.
   Soyuz has no payload return capability and was never intended to have
any. It is an expendable rocket, it delivers the payload to orbit and
ends its mission at that point. Russians can return stuff back to Earth
using capsules (like Apollo). At lest 4 Progress Landing Capsules returned
stuff from MIR, some others were returning some material processing or
biological experiments from autonomous flights. The total numbers for
capsules are not know since most of them are military related (e.g. photoreconaissance) and thus clasified.



> In further reflecting on this discussion, mass to or from orbit isn't
> really the issue.  The real issue is how much are you getting for that mass.

> How much scientific and engineering data have the Russians obtained
> from their program; and how much scientific and engineering data has
> the Shuttle program delivered for the free-world?


Well, my original posting was about the AMOUNT of cargo delivered to orbit,
and I was pointing out that, contrary to your statement, shuttle has been
superseeded it this category by several other launch systems (including
Soyuz, among others). Wether all this mass has been actually usefull for
anything is an entirely different question.



How much scientific and engineering data have the Russians got ? Honestly,
I do not know the answer to this question. For one thing, Russians do not
advertise what they do (especially the engineering research). Apparently
they got something acomplished, otherwize US would not be buing space
technologies from them today (e.g. Topaz reactor and Hall thrusters)

  As far as science goes, I have seen some astronomical data published
(it is my field so I know about it). Mostly about X-ray and gamma-ray
astronomy. In seventies and eighties they have studied very intensively
the gamma ray bursts (until GRO, they had the largest data colection).
However, the amount and quality of their astronomical data is nowhere close
to what USA or ESA is doing (judging from published work). I cannot tell you
anything about other scientific fields, I simply do not know.

There is one field in which their research is far more advanced than US
research: the biology and psyhology of human spaceflight. They certainly
know MUCH more about it than anybody else. Wether this knowledge is useful
for anything it is a matter of opinion (I think it is).

Finally we have to remember that most of Russian payloads are military in
nature. They launch a lot of reconaissance spacecrafts of different kinds,
for example. It is again a matter of opinion, but I think that these
payloads are extremely usefull since the satelite reconaissance has a
major stabilizing effect and as such contributes to preserving the peace.


Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: 13 May 1993 00:05:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: test
Newsgroups: sci.space

--

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 02:10:04 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry Spencer is God.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 564
------------------------------