Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO663.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Thu,  3 Jun 93 05:20:29
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #663
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  3 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 663

Today's Topics:
                   * Astronomic animations wanted *
                                Buran
                             DC-? engines
                              DSN Usage
              Exotic Materials Use in Space Structures
                             flight rates
                  Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
                   Jonathan's Space Report, no. 156
                    Kepler's dream of space travel
                          Moon Base (2 msgs)
                           Musgrave Injured
                    Some numbers for Ken (3 msgs)
                         SSF Managers Asleep
                      The Lewis & Clark project
                   Why a far side Science station.

    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: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 20:44:08 GMT
From: Frank ROUSSEL <[e-mail]>
Subject: * Astronomic animations wanted *
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'd like to know where i can get some astronomic animations
(retrievable by anonymous FTP or mail, but no BBS and modem)

Thanks in advance

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   _______       _______       ________   | Firstname: Frank
  /______/|     /______/\     /_______/|  | Lastname : ROUSSEL
 / ______|/    /  ____ \/|    |__   __|/  | E-mail: [e-mail]
/ /|           | |____| |/       | ||     | Telephone: + 33 99 83 26 10
| ||           |  __  __/        | ||     |
| |\______     | || \ \\       __| ||__   | Address: 175, rue Belle Epine
\ \______/|    | ||  \ \\     /__| |/_/|  | CityStateZip: 35510
 \_______|/    |_|/   \_\|    |_______|/  | Cityname: CESSON SEVIGNE
    Centre de Ressources Informatiques    | Country: FRANCE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Science without conscience is only soul's ruin (Rabelais) ------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Signed: The responsible of ASTROGOF project at Rennes' University of France   -
- who contributes to the development of CRI-CICB Gopher's server (ASTRO images) -
-- by maintaining an astronomic ftp server 'ftp.cicb.fr' in /pub/Images/ASTRO  --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 18:41:35 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1uifs0$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>I seem to recall reading somewhere during the Drop tests of Buran that
>>they were even thinking of doing a Once around touch and go.
>
>If my memory is not fooling me, among the videos Bozlee and Stine showed
>at Making Orbit was a sequence of a jet-powered Buran taking off under
>its own power.  (Understand, I'm not talking simulations or animations,
>but real Soviet-shot footage of a real event.)

Yes, this is correct. There were no 'drop tests' of Buran, only
self powered flights. The modifyed Mya-4 (VM-T Atlant) aircraft could not
lift a fully assembled Buran and was only used for ferry flights from the
Tushinskiy plant to Baykonur and the Ramenskoye air test center. Photos
of one ferry flight shows the vertical tail removed and probably other
components were also removed. Only with the introduction of the An-225
in late 1988 well after the first atmospheric test flight series of the
GLI-Buran (approach and landing version) could a complete orbiter be carried.
The first GLI-Buran flight was in Nov. 1985 and the last was apparently in
April 1988, 21 in all.

>>|... but the flight configuration has no engines...
>
>More correctly:  the only flight configuration that has actually flown
>has no engines.  Whether that was the only configuration the program
>planned to fly is less clear.

The GLI-Buran had 4-9090 kg. thrust Lyulka engines, 2 of which were
mounted in aerodynamic housings blended with the fuselage above the
'boat tail' while the other 2 were mounted in pods stuck on the sides
of the boat tail. It was reported by Neville Kidger in Spaceflight that
until March 1988, 2 jets were to be installed on all Burans, but this
was obviously changed before the only flight in Nov. 1988.

Even though there are noises from NPO Energia about funding a second
Buran flight to dock with Mir (see the editorial in the last issue Space
News) it has been stated for a long time by Igor Volk that before another
flight and certianly any manned flight that a new series of approach and
landing tests would be needed.

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 21:19:23 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-? engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Marginal cost of Comm bird IMO
>$30 million.

>Marginal cost of Atlas Mission (After all thestanding army is
>going to be there.)

>$12 Million. IMO.

Pat, these numbers are flat out wrong.  You can't buy a Huges 601 for $30
million or an Atlas for $12 million.  These things have list prices. If you're
putting "In My Opinion" on them you don't need to post your numbers. This group
now generates something on the order of one hundred posts a day.  I think we can
all afford to cut back on the number of posts we make when we don't know what
we're talking about.


Dennis wrote this bit

>>There was no answer as you well know at the presentation about the RL-2000
>>for the DC-series. You know that a new engine is going to cost 5 billion
>>dollars to develop as the DC folks know.

I agree with your caution on the development of new liquid engines.  However,
in one of the talks (I believe by Gaubatz) they stated that some of the work
necessary for the RL-200 had already been done, I believe in a previous
program by TRW.

>>Those folks ought to take up the suggestion that I made to
>>talk to NASA about J-2's.

>The J-2's would be real useful on a DC-Y just as a risk reduction/
>cost reduction item.  Being off the shelf,  there is little cost
>to procuring them,  and even if under-powered, they would be
>real good for validating the airframe and beginning the flight
>test program.

They did discuss J-2's with Marshall.  I believe that one of the concerns was
the range of throttle control available.  One of the viewgraphs shown (it may
have been in a different talk than the one you saw Dennis) showed possible
lower risk technologies that could be applied, given that the DC-X follow on
has a large margin to play with.  One of those was the J-2.  They also showed
a chart of payload capacity with different engines and the J-2 was there.  I'd
like to see try a version with the Russian RD 701 tripropellant engines.  The
listed payload was 75,000 lbs.

>>By the way I was happy to meet you and Josh and all the other sci.spacers

We were happy to meet you, Cheryl and SEDSAT too.

>>even the floating guitar player from fermilab!
>Is that bill?

Yes.  One of these days you all have to corner Bill and make him play "Home on
Lagrange" for you on his ukulele.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
    "This Universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on
              government contract."
                -RAH

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 20:54:26 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSN Usage
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>Are things going to get better or worse?
>>
>Probably worse. I see more spacecraft being launched than dying out.

Also, as I understand it, DSN has been starved for maintenance funding
for quite a while, and this neglect is starting to take its toll.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1993 21:00:54 GMT
From: Innocent Bystander <[e-mail]>
Subject: Exotic Materials Use in Space Structures
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

[e-mail] (Nick Janow) Pontificated:
>
>There's also the potential for alloys that can be prepared in lunar gravity
>but not in Earth gravity, and still more that can be made in zero-g.  There
>are also alloys that aren't used or even studied much on Earth due to
>problems with atmospheric interaction (both in forming and use).  Who knows,
>calcium alloyed with bismuth and lithium (for example) could turn out to be
>an important material.
>
>I think metallurgists are going to have fun.  :)

The PC term is now Materials Engineering :-)

This brings up a line of thought I've been thinking about for
awhile.  The environment and resources available in space might
lead to the use of materials in a way not imagined now.  The
lack of oxygen might lead to the use of some alloys which would
crumble in our atmosphere.

But the thing that I've been thinking about the most is the use
of materials that are liquid or even gas at our temperatures.
For the simplest example, water ice with some kind of
reinforcing fiber (perhaps specially grown algie grown for that
purpose) could be used as a structural material in the outer
solar system.  Water is abundant out there so it would make
sense to use it.  It would also provide radiation shielding by
virtue of its mass.

A while back there was some talk about the use of
sawdust-reinforced ice as a building material.  I think the word
I heard was "Pycrete" or something like that.  Does anyone have
any references on that stuff.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "You know how people are.  They only recognize greatness         |
| when some authority confirms it."                                |
|                    -Bill Watterson in "Calvin and Hobbes"        |

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 21:14:34 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: flight rates
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1uj02u$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>Number 3, your estimates of DC-1 flight rates seem awfully high.
>200 flights per year comes to 4 flights per week.  I can't imagine
>any government needing a flight rate that high.  What are we flying
>200 times per year?  Tourists?

Why not?  The DC-1 cargo bay is nominally 15x15x25 ft (sorry for the
archaic units).  Budgeting 3ft width and 5ft length per seat, including
aisles (which is more than United would give you), that's 25 people per
deck.  Assume we only get two decks out of 15ft height.  That gives you
50 passengers.  Allen's low estimate of flight costs was $6M.  That's
$120k per passenger.  Would people pay this?  Damn right they would.

>Can anyone out there tell me if the entire world sends 200 rockets into
>orbit per year?

Not at present.  The busiest year might have hit 150, before the USSR
started to feel economic strains.

But look at it another way.  The world launched, say, one million pounds
a year to orbit at a time when this cost, say, $5000/lb.  At $500/lb,
somewhat above Allen's low estimate, the same budget would pay for
400 DC-1 flights a year.  Now, this isn't a realistic number because
(a) demand isn't that elastic and (b) a lot of those launches were Soviet
and it didn't cost *them* any $5000/lb.  Still, think about it -- how
many DC-1 launches could NASA buy with half of its shuttle budget?  Are
you suggesting that NASA couldn't find uses for them all?
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 19:13:19 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ugieo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>Dennis, whom we all have a ton of respect for once posted a NASA
>figure  that a shuttle mission only cost $27 million dollars.
>
>NOT!.....

Well, most Shuttle missions only cost $27 million. It's the *first*
one each year that costs $3.8 billion. Once the fixed overhead is
paid, which costs the same whether there is one flight or 10 in a
given year, the rest is just peanuts.

Everyone who's seriously looked at Shuttle knows it's the overhead
that kills it economically. It's actual flight costs are quite
low. That's the whole premise of the DC program, to build a reusable
vehicle that can be operated with low overhead costs. Otherwise,
expendables with higher operational costs, because they must bend
metal for each flight, are cheaper in total because their support
costs are comparatively low. If flight rate requirements are modest,
expendables are cheaper in total. If high flight rates are needed,
a low operational cost reusable vehicle may be cheaper.

NASA planned to reduce launch costs by operating many Shuttles very
frequently to spread fixed costs. They also originally expected fixed
costs to be lower than they are. That didn't materialize. DC also
needs to operate many vehicles frequently for the same reason. It's
yet to be shown that that will happen, or that DC as designed will
even be able to perform it's intended flight envelope. To seriously
get lift costs down, something will either have to be built that
can operate reusably on airliner schedules at airliner overheads,
or something will have to be built that can be cheaply expended.
It depends critically on flight rate which is the cheaper direction.

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: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 21:39:08 GMT
From: Jeff Bulf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, no. 156
Newsgroups: sci.space

> The Mir complex
> now consists of the core module, the Kvant, Kvant-2 and Kristall modules,
> the Sofora structure, and the Soyuz TM-16, Progress M-17 and Progress
> M-18 ferry craft.

Pretty elaborate! What is this sofora structure?
I try to follow these things
pretty closely, but I must have missed this one.
--

___  __|    __ \
    |      |    |    dr memory
    |      |   /    [e-mail]
    |       ___ \
    |      |     |
____|     ______/

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 21:53:04 GMT
From: Mark Rosenfelder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kepler's dream of space travel
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,rec.arts.sf.written

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>The *Somnium* may be said to be the earliest "hard-science" SF story:
>one which hews closely to the line of contemporary science.

I'd say Dante's _Divine Comedy_ has it beat by about three centuries.

(To say nothing of Lucian of Samosata, or the _Somnium Scipionis_.)

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 18:15:34 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
Note: I deleted the rest because Phil and Frank have already adequately
addressed those points. All I can add is "ditto" to that.

>> But few will bother to stop at Luna, climbing in and out of that well is
>> too expensive for a visit to a slag heap of light metals and silicates.
>
>It won't be too expensive if the light metals, silicates and volatiles (O2,
>S) are easier/cheaper to extract and process, and energy and reaction mass is
>cheap (as well as transport via efficient mass driver).

To get to the point where you can build a Lunar mass driver, you will
have to have a lunar base facility costing *hundreds of billions* of
dollars. That's not going to happen unless the bulk of those funds are
bootstrapped from native profits. And, you can't start turning those
profits *without* that base. It's chicken and egg time. With space
processing, the first volatile recovery mission, small, approaches
break even and quickly bootstraps to follow on missions that will show
profits. See Szabo's ranting and raving about this a few months back.
I argued against him then, but damnit, he's right, though overly

optimistic about the timeframe and startup costs. For a few *tens*
of billions, we can have a self supporting space exploitation system
in place in 20-50 years by going for comets and asteroids. There's
no way we can approach that by building bases on Luna.

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: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 17:54:31 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1udv2t$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>It is also a comment on the industrial infra-structure at the time,
>That columbus's first voyage went with 3 ships and returned with
>one,  but his second voyage had 17?  ships and his third voyage
>had 74?
>
>The equivalent in Apollo, would have been 1 year after Armstrong landed,
>30 "Nova" class vehicles would have followed up with a permanent
>base.

If Armstrong had reported back that there were exploitable plants
and animals, precious gems and gold, and native populations ripe
for conversion to Christianity and enslavement, there *would* have
been 30 privately financed Nova class vessels docking at Moonport.
Unfortunately for the potential exploiters, he reported back that
Luna was a desolate place with little or nothing of intrinsic value
available for the taking.

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: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 20:15:02 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Musgrave Injured
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

>>>>> On 2 Jun 1993 17:33 UT, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) said:
RB> I heard that Shuttle astronaut Story Musgrave was injured - suffered mild
RB> frostbite to the fingers in his right hand.

The news blurb I head while leaving the house claimed that it shouldn't
affect his flight status.


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
[e-mail]                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 21:00:56 GMT
From: "Charles J. Divine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some numbers for Ken
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1uj02u$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>Can anyone out there tell me if the entire world sends 200 rockets into
>orbit per year?

I can't speak to the current situation, but before the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the Soviet government was launching approximately 100
rockets per year for various reasons.

Also, if the cost goes down by one order of magnitude, I would expect
the demand to increase considerably.  Rich people might consider buying
at ticket to orbit.  Malcolm Forbes once threw himself a $2M birthday
party.  $200K for a trip to orbit?  The list of tourists could get
rather long.

Speaking for myself, if the price to orbit get down to the $100/lb. rate,
I start saving for the once in a lifetime trip.


--
Chuck Divine

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 21:51:59 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some numbers for Ken
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Well to help Ken out I dug out my spreadsheets and plugged in some new
>DC numbers which recently came my way. I will present two models which
>show expected vs worse case. The worse case is in essence the best case
>times two. Both models assume a production run of four DC-1's and a total
>launch rate of 200 flights per year for the fleet. DDT&E is amortized
>over ten years at an interest rate of 8%/year. The numbers are:
>
>DDT&E   Launch Cost   Total Cost    Payload    $/LB to LEO


Now i have a question: how do you justify the number of 200flight
per year ?  This flight rate would mean 4800000lb delivered to LEO.
This is several times more than the current payload to orbit of USA
and Europe combined. This is also at least twice (probably 3 times)
more than Russians are launching aanualy.

Do you expect that the lower cost is going to boost the demand so
strongly ?


Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 22:00:52 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some numbers for Ken
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1uj02u$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Can anyone out there tell me if the entire world sends 200 rockets into
>orbit per year?



In the peak (in 1980s) Russians have been launching about 100 a year,
the rest of the world probably about 30-40. So the top rate was about
130-140, certainly below 150.


Today it is lower (Russians slowed down).


Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 17:36 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Managers Asleep
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>
>Nobody has any problems with mistakes Ken. The problem is that NASA is
>far more interested in hiding mistakes than congronting them and learning
>from them. NASA spent six years and several billion $$ on a station which
>couldn't have been built. Yet NASA to the end insisted that everything was
>just fine. Station managers where informed by several memos over ten
>months that WP 02 was out of control yet they showed more interest in
>cvering up the problems and pretending they whern't there than fixing
>them. They allowed a small problem to grow into a $1 billion overrun.
>
>I myself, expect mistakes. I also expect them to be learned from.
>
>  Allen

I have a tolerance for your abuse of SSF managers. I would guess that
I accept every ten of your postings bashing SSF management, before
my blood pressure rises to the point where I must post to vent
some steam.

You love to claim we spent several billion dollars on an SSF design
which couldn't have been built, all the while insisting that there
were no problems whatsoever. As I understand it, your specific
allegation is that the old deployable truss concept could not be
built. You support this with some quotes from Aviation Week.

Ok. I'll accept the argument that the deployable truss concept
would have taken extensive amounts of EVA to construct, and I'll
even agree that you could characterize the funds used on the
preliminary design of the deployable truss as "wasted." However,
that sum would be far far less than several billion dollars. Yes,
several billions of dollars had been spent on the SSF design at
that point, but many elements (such as the Lab module, Hab module,
solar array, battery, power management and distribution equipment,
environmental control system, data management system, thermal
control system, and communication and tracking system, to provide
some examples that quickly come to mind) do not change when the
truss design is modified, so the money spent on them is not
wasted. Also, I don't agree that NASA was involved in a massive
coverup to hide the problem of the deployable truss. Anybody could
see that the EVA time for constructing the truss was rather large.
Many folks in the program were aware of this, and groups were
studying the problem. Isn't this business as usual for an engineer -
problems pop up, and you try to solve them. So what's the big
deal?

Your second example of NASA mismanagement involves the letters
sent by the Level II program manager to somebody (I'm not
sure who he wrote the letters to) pointing out the problems
at WP-02. You allege these letters went unanswered, and NASA
upper management simply choose to ignore the problem.

First off, I'm not completely trusting of what I read in
Space News (where the letters were discussed, and I'm assuming
this was your source). I have not seen these letters, so
I'm not sure how strongly they make the case of a problem
at WP-02. I recall that when the Level II program manager
testified before Congress, these letters were discussed, and
he backed off from the Space News report that the letters
indicated a need to immediately change the WP-02 program
management.

I can only tell you that when I give my weekly briefings
on the development status of WP-04 to the Level I program
director, I report on the problems, as well as the good
things. When I report on problems, I'm always asked "what's
being done to solve it?" I have *NEVER* heard the program
director say "Oh, let's cover that up, and don't ever
talk about that problem again." The representatives from
WP-1 and WP-2 do the same thing.

Tomorrow, I'm supposed to sit in when the program director
briefs the status of the program to the associate
administrator, as he prepares for his testimony before
Congress next week. I'll let you know if the AA says
"Oh, your supposed to be covering up that problem,
don't you remember?"

On a final note, I wish you would be more specific
in your allegations of mismanagement - who is
exactly at fault? Goldin? The AA for Space Station
(Aldrich)? The Program Director at Level I (Kohrs)?
The Program Manager at Level II (Moorehead)?

I would guess Moorehead is the good guy in your
second allegation, as he is the one who wrote the
letters.

Kohrs is held in high esteem in Congress - in
the press conference announcing HR 2200 on
May 20, Representative Hall said "Finally,
our bill also directs NASA to put some teeth
into its management of the Space Station
Program, increasing Contractor accountability as
well as improving NASA and Contractor
efficiency. Dick Kohrs, the current Space Station
Freedom Program Director, has done an outstanding
job in guiding this program through some turbulent
times and getting it to the Critical Design Review."



=========
Thomas J. Watson, former IBM Chairman, 1943:
"I think there is a world market for about five computers."

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 14:45:07 -0700
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Lewis & Clark project
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.astro

The Lewis & Clark project: an idea whose time has come.

Three examples of the new faster, cheaper, better spacecraft
are the  Lockheed F-SAT, the Lockheed Iridium, and Loral Globalstar,
all small platforms that could be operational by 1995.  F-SAT can be
launched on Delta 2 for $55 million to interplanetary destinations.
Iridium and Globalstar class spacecraft can be launched in sets of two-four
on Delta or singly on MX-derived launchers now under development.
Because it uses the latest technology, F-SAT has more communications
and computer capability than Mariner Mk. II, despite its much smaller
size.  Globalstar is close to Observer-class in capability.   Both
spacecraft and launch cost less than one-fourth the current old
technology of Mariner Mk. II and Observer.

The Lewis project: a mission of 200 (count them, two hundred)
Iridium-class deep space probes, launched in pairs to deep
space, 20/yr over 10 years.  That's 12 each for every planet and the
Moon plus 80 for hundreds of asteroids and comets.

Assuming _no economy of scale_ this would cost ($55e6+$65e6)*100 = $12
billion, or less than one-fifth the construction + operation costs of
the new, even more shrunken SSF, stuck in a low earth orbit during
the same time period.  Scale-factor savings would pay for the Clark
project: DSN upgrades, telescope projects such as SpaceWatch and
spectroscopy (remote chemical analysis), data analysis and basic planetary
science, manned missions to Antartica to retrieve asteroidal, comet,
lunar, and Martian samples fallen as meteors, and enabling technologies
such as electric and nuclear thermal upper stages, a deep space laser
communications highway, and the like.

Since this project uses the same American rockets as used to launch
commercial satellites, it would be a shot in the arm for a sustainable
U.S. launch industry.  U.S. commercial space technology would get
further boosts from electric rocket, laser communications, and
remote automation capabilities.

The project would be jointly run by space scientists and an applied
space exploration office -- ie. half the instruments and target choices
would be for "pure" science, and half for applied exploration -- searching
for native volatiles, metals, etc. for use in future space industries.
The project's name comes from the famous early American explorers,
Lewis & Clark, sent by William Jefferson Clinton's hero, Thomas
Jefferson, to explore the West with both applications purely scientific
goals in mind.

This dramatically new approach to space would be more politically
viable, as well as more productive, than trying to rescue the
failed pork barrel space projects of previous years.
The current political climate provides a unique opportunity for
getting U.S. space exploration back in top form.

Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jun 93 14:02:17 PDT
From: Barbara Haddad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why a far side Science station.
Newsgroups: sci.space

     .......because Gary Larson needs a nice, quiet place to draw
cartoons & Earth's getting crowded?     :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad -> ([e-mail])
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 663
------------------------------