Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V17/V17NO014.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-13 | 16KB | 346 lines

Space Digest                Thu, 12 Aug 93       Volume 17 : Issue 014

Today's Topics:
                  Do astronauts use sleeping pills?
                  GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
                         Moon Rocks For Sale

    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, 11 Aug 1993 17:12:58 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Do astronauts use sleeping pills?
Newsgroups: sci.space

: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) writes:
: >...complained that it was very difficult to sleep in
: >the Shuttle because of all the noise...
: >... I started wondering
: >whether astronauts take sleeping pills ...

Henry Spencer ([e-mail]) replied:
: I would expect that safety considerations preclude this.  In an emergency,
: it's important to be able to wake up quickly and completely.

The astronauts have "sleeping pills" available to them in their medical
kit.  I don't know if they actually use them -- the usage of
prescription drugs is private medical data and is never made public
without the astronaut's permission.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "After breakfast, I hook a full urine bag to the overboard
      dump valve [of Gemini 10] and am rewarded with the usual
      snowstorm of escaping white particles.  The constellation
      'Urion,' as Wally Schirra has dubbed it, is formed by the
      instantaneous freezing of the urine stream as it reaches the
      vacuum of space and breaks into thousands of individual miniature
      spheres.  Cascading out in an irregular stream, they whiz past
      the window and tumble off into infinity, glistening virginal
      white in the sunlight instead of the nasty yellow we know them to
      be.  The fairytale quality is typical of this place, an unreal
      world far above the unseen squalor below."
    -- Michael Collins, "Carrying the Fire," p. 246

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 15:37:49 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <23pjn3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|In <23been$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|
>|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|>>In <236h2v$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|
>|And maybe if elephants could fly would all carry very large umbrellas
>|when we go out.
>|
>|>Well, you kept brushing off  the 5 reasons i gave,  so i imagine
>|>your paint brush will include  low cost ACRV delivery as merely
>|>letting the russians play too.
>|
>|Well, I brush off your reasons because you gave some pretty inadequate
>|reasons for most of them.  In fact, several of them amounted to the
>|same thing -- it lets the Russians play.  So does this one, actually.
>|So yes, I do indeed 'brush that off'.

>You also brushed off in that group,  the fact that at 51.6
>a crew can do an emergency return to the CONUS  within 4 Hours
>Guaranteed,  Probably a lot less.  If they have a medical emergency
>i am sure they want to return  to someplace fairly civilised
>ASAP.  At 28.5,  there aren't a lot of industrialized territory
>they are flying over.

And if they see a UFO and are attacked and/or abducted they will no
doubt also want to come down quickly.  The operative question is just
what the odds are of needing that capability in a situation where
nothing else will do and whether they are large enough to merit the
costs.  So yes, barring some credible reason why such a high-speed
return would be necessary on a routine enough basis to be worth at
least a $400 million outlay to improve an already too-costly system,
yes, I brush that one off, too.  Personally, I just don't see it.
Anything that has to come down can wait for an appropriate pass in any
circumstance that I can imagine without stretching credulity simply to
try to prove your point.

>And matt's  contention that Mexico is civilized,  must mean
>he's never been to tijuana :-)  Seriously, i doubt the quality
>of the shock trauma facilities  in Juarez city compare anything
>to Baltimore  or any other Urban city here.

If they need that kind of care that badly and that quickly, odds are
you're doing a high speed return of a cadaver anyway.  So, what's the

gain that's worth $400 million for the improvements necessary to put
the station in a high-inclination orbit (plus whatever ongoing costs
might prove to be)?

>|
>|>I suppose  High radiation levels for more appropriate understnading
>|>of life science  for long duration space travel  is also
>|>a rotten reason too.
>|
>|A *real* rotten reason.  You're back to the "it's harder to do it my
>|way, so that's how we should do it" mode.  We can get high radiation
>|levels (if we feel we need to study them) right here on earth a lot
>|cheaper than deliberately putting our own station in an orbit that may
>|well prove to be unhealthy (unlikely, but this whole excuse for a high
>|inclination orbit is merely silly).
>|

>Well,  It wasn't considered silly to put Skylab into a high inclination
>orbit, fred.

And just why did they put it where they did, Pat?  How much more did
it cost them than putting it at a lower inclination?  Now examine what
YOU are saying.  Putting SSF in a high-inclination orbit just because
it's more difficult and more dangerous is beyond silly -- it's
outright stupid.  You need to come up with a good reason.

>Remember if SKylab had gone into 28.5, it probably would have lasted
>another  year or two, plus it would have been easier to build and
>engineer, etc,etc...

>Why don't you consider  the previous manned space station program
>as a useful precedent.

Because it wasn't intended to be a permanently manned station, it was
kluged together on a sort of 'spur of the moment' thing, and you have
yet to explain why *it* was put in the orbit it was, what it cost them
extra to do it that way (nothing -- they already had a heavy lift
booster that would have been used no matter where they put it), and
why we should spend half a billion dollars to put a very different
station there.

>Plus,  If your contention is we can simulate bio-science
>in the lab, then why build SSF?   The point of SSF  especially in
>high orbit, is the combination of micro-g,  high radiation, etc
>is more like the space environment  en-route to space.

>Part of SSF's justification is we want to understand the biology
>of a Mars mission.

Prolonged weightlessness, Pat.  My contention is just what I said --
we can simulate *radition environments* down here.  Or is it your
contention that radiation somehow is 'different' in space?

>|>YOu and DOug are un-repentant cold warriors, in which case,
>|>no reason exists as valid.
>|
>|And you are a fool.  It's stupid flame-bait like the preceding that
>|makes your notes barely worth reading.  Note that I also don't think
>|you can justify a high inclination orbit on the basis of letting the
>|Japanese play, either.  Does that make me a racist as well?  Or does
>|that merely mean that I think that it's stupid for US to assume extra
>|costs so that OTHERS can play?
>|

>I don't think it's neccessary to torque the Program so the
>japanese can play either.  I mentioned  High Latitude for
>japanese participation as a token to completeness.

>COnsidering their launcher is still just a bad smoking wreck
>on the pad,  it isn't neccessary to treat them as a
>full space going nation.

Oh, I see.  Not wanting to bend things so that the Japanese can play
doesn't mean anything because you agree.  Not wanting to bend things
so that the Russians can play makes me "an un-repentant [sic] cold
warrior" because you disagree.  Nice consistent logic, Pat.

Given the choice, I'd rather 'bend' things so the Japanese can play.
They can afford to pay their own freight.  You're proposing that *we*
spend half a billion dollars so that someone else can play.  If they
want to play, let *them* pony up the extra costs.  And that applies to
everyone else, as well.

>|>Considering your response to improved earth observation,
>|>i would say you are not very open to ideas other then 28.5
>|
>|But what you say has nothing to do with me.  Considering my response
>|to improved earth observation, I would say that I want some indication
>|of just how big the improvement is and whether it is worth the added
>|costs TO US.  Why do you find that to be such an unreasonable thing?
>|All you have to do is come up with some reasonable estimate for just
>|what the 'improvement' amounts to and justify the additional costs of
>|the high inclination orbit.  However, your responses, consisting as

>The only answer i can give on earth science is it doubles the
>area of study.

>I am not an earth scientist,  so i can't go much further then that.

>You come up with rhetorical questions,  like is that improvement
>meaningful?  sorry, that's just rhetoric.

Asking if the gain is worth the price is "just rhetoric"?  You
advocate spending at least half a billion dollars and *DON'T KNOW* if
the gain is worth the costs and call it "just rhetoric" when someone
asks you that question?  Hell, Pat, you should run for Congress.  You
already appear to have the right mindset -- who cares if it's worth
it, just spend more money.

>I can't do a cost/benefit analysis on this,  but the Vest panel
>must have,  because they approved heartily of the idea.

And why did they do that, Pat?  You're endorsing their conclusion
sight unseen?  You're *assuming* that they came to the conclusion they
did for 'non-political' reasons?  When did you acquire this endearing
faith in the conclusions of govenrment-sponsored committees?

>>
>>
>>>Putting this money into  DC-1  may not be a bad idea,
>>>but i just suggested it as a option to not having the Russians
>>>use Proton.  Besides,  ASRM/Al-LI are the quickest route
>>>to an incremental improvement on Lift capacity.
>>
>>At the cost of burning half a billion dollars per mission.  Is it
>>worth it to enhance a capability that is already that costly?  What
>>alternatives do you give up or lock out?
>>

>Fred.

>    you must be operating on a real serious mistaken assumption here.

Or you are.

>    Do you think that each ASRM/AL-LI enhanced mission will cost
>    $500 Million?

I think every time you light fires under a Shuttle you burn half a
billion.  You are proposing inventing a rationale to spend money to
improve the lift of that system rather than spending money to put
together a system to lift more mass more cheaply.

>    When i toss around 400 Million for ASRM/AL-LI,  that is the additional
>    DDTE  to finish out the facilities at Stennis, run the
>    ASRM qualification tests,  and To do the same for the
>    AL-LI  at Michoud.

To imporve a system that is hideously expensive to operate and which
will be no cheaper after the improvements.  Look at it this way, Pat.
Imagine you have a Rolls Royce truck.  Imagine it cost you a lot of
money to buy and that it costs you a lot of money to operate.  What
you are suggesting is rather like proposing that you should move
simply so that you have an excuse to spend the money to have the bed
of your truck lengthened so that you can carry your couch.

>    From reading the trade rags, the fly away cost delta for an
>    ASRM is $50 Million per  and  $27 Million for the AL-LI tank.
>
>    Enhanced lift missions will cost a little more,  but not much
>    compared to the programs total budget.

Ok, that makes a fly-away delta per mission of $127 million, plus $400
million to develop -- all for a capability that you want to invent a
mission to justify.  The cost per mission goes from around $500
million to around $627 million.  Now, how many launches are we
proposing to put the station up?  Add up the numbers and see what
you'd have to spend if you did it some other way.  You've got $400
million plus, say, at least half a dozen flights at a delta of $127
million each -- so you want to spend around $1.2 billion for some gain
that you have yet to quantify.  I'd rather spend that money on
something else -- say a replacement for Shuttle so that we can stop
burning half a billion bucks per launch.

>    Also, the current ISRMs are scheduled for replacement,
>    and given the continued problems  with the Field joints,
>    is it worth  continued risk to the OV, to fly the doggy
>    kludged up ISRMs  versus the far superior and
>    safer ASRM's

>    can you do a cost/benefit assesment on this?  i can't.

Well, there is another choice.  Fly the ISRMs until you have a cheap
heavy-lifter and a small manned vehicle, then scrap the whole works.
It's silly to continue to pour money down a rathole.

>
>>
>>Do you propose flying Shuttle C with new main engines?  If not, where
>>are the 'used' engines to come from?


>Sure.  why not.

I just wondered.  One of the ostensible arguments that used to be used
for Shuttle C was that it was cost effective because it used old
SSME's that were toward the end of their operational lifespans.  It
becomes somewhat less so if you have to tool up and produce new
engines for it (although it's still probably *faster* to develop than
an all new system and not too hideously costly).

>    If we need a fast off the ramp, all american HLLV,  then Shuttle
>    C is it.  Of course if we need a fast, Cheap HLLV,  Proton
>    and energiya are the ticket.

There are other alternatives, even if you don't happen to like them.

--
"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: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 16:50:36 GMT
From: Robert Casey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Rocks For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.geo.geology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>>So, rockhound Ron, what do *you* expect they'll go for?  Shouldn't
>>"rocks" of any size go for a lot more than "dust stuck to a piece of
>>tape?"
>>
>
>You would think so, but auctions are very unpredictable.  I'm trying
>to find out the size of the rocks and whether they are being sold individually
>or as a lot.

Unless these moon rocks have been contaiminated with the atmosphere or
poor handling, I would think that the scientific community would want to
see these moon rocks kept available for research, similar to the Apollo
samples.  Maybe the new owner might let scientists look at 'em sometime?
Sure...

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

End of Space Digest Volume 17 : Issue 014
------------------------------