Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_2/V9_283.ZIP/V9_283

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IY5Ywey00UkZA=YU5j>;
          Thu,  9 Mar 89 05:17:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <IY5YwTy00UkZ8=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  9 Mar 89 05:17:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #283

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 283

Today's Topics:
              Re: Pivoting solar arrays
             heavylift launchers
          Re: E'Prime and news about Thiokol
             Future of the Space Station
        Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology
               Re: the un/manned debate
             Immune System at 0G
             Re: LANDSAT TO BE TURNED OFF
         Re: First concert from space--update
               Re: the un/manned debate
            Babies born in space.
              Re: 1992 moon base
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1989 15:05-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pivoting solar arrays

You should check on some back issues of Tech Briefs. NASA has developed
solar arrays that have small cells behind a honeycomb of parabolic
reflectors. Not only is the intensity on the given cell increased, but
no tracking is required for a fairly wide range of sun angles.

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

Date: 3 Mar 89 20:33:40 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: heavylift launchers

In article <240aa600@ralf> [e-mail] writes:
>... After several years of study, it will now take five years to make
>an operational system of mostly-existing components.  The Saturn V was
>designed and built from scratch in rather less than five years--*without*
>years of study.

While I am second to nobody in my admiration for the Saturn V, let us not
get too carried away here.  The Saturn V wasn't *quite* that quick a job.
F-1 engine development, in particular, started earlier than you'd think.
(It was likely to be a useful engine even though nobody knew what kind of
booster would be built using it or what kind of missions would be flown.)
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Mar 89 17:04:53 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: E'Prime and news about Thiokol

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Jim Bowery):
> The S-series vehicles are made up of one or more MX booster segments
> standing alone, stacked and/or strapped together.
>
> Here are the payload capabilities:
>
> VEHICLE  LEO     GTO     PLANETARY    SCHEDULED  CONFIGURATION  REMARKS
> S1       2,500   975     675          4Q 1990    1 stage        1,200 Polar
> S2       6,500   2,400   1,625        3Q 1991    2 stage        4,200 Polar
> S3       11,000  4,200   2,900        3Q 1992    2 stage w/2 strap-ons
> S4       17,500  6,500   4,500        3Q 1993    2 stage w/3 strap-ons

This sounds like a great idea to me. I've actually tried to get some
rocket people I know thinking about something like this. Glad to hear
it is being done.

I do have a few questions. What do you mean by "MX booster segment?"
The MX is a 3 stage booster, none of the stages are segmented.

Each stage is manufactured by a different company. I know folks who've
worked on the 1st and 3rd stages. Thiokol and Hercules are about 80
miles from each other right here in Utah.

    stage    manufacturer

      1      Morton Thiokol
      2      Aerojet
      3      Hercules

Which stages are they using? I assume that they are using the Thiokol
1st stage for the S1. Is the S2 a 1st and 2nd stage MX? Or is it 2 1st
stages stacked?

Thiokol has killed almost as many people with its MX 1st stage as it
has with its Shuttle SRBs. During production of the MX 1st stage the
Air Force supended payments to Thiokol and refused to accept motors
because of the poor quality of the motors as built by Thiokol.

The MX 1st stage motors are built at the same plant, under the same
management, as the Shuttle SRBs. Thiokols quality problems with the MX
were going on at the same time as their redesign of the SRBs.

I heard on the radio this morning that because of the public relations
problems caused by the destruction of the Challenger, Morton Thiokol
is spliting into 2 different companies. One, to be called "Thiokol,"
will take over all the aerospace operations of Morton Thiokol. The
other, to be called "Morton International," will have everything else
that is currently part of Morton Thiokol.

Maybe the new Thiokol will be able to solve some of its problems.
There are Thiokol motors that have never had a flight failure. (The
Castor motors used on Delta and the first Delta IIs.) I hope they can
get back to being that kind of company. But without the Air Force on
sight inspectors enforcing quality I wouldn't buy a Thiokol motor.

I wonder if anyone has tried to get "exclusive rights" to commercial
use of the Trident or Trident II motor sets?

                Bob P.

--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

        Reality is what you make of it.

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

Date: 2 Mar 89 23:07:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy![e-mail]
Subject: Future of the Space Station


From USA Today, Thursday, March 2, 1989.

SPACE STATION UP IN AIR AS TO SIZE, SCOPE
  by Paul Hoversten/USA Today

  The centerpiece of the U.S space program is but a series of blueprints
and mockups, even after four years of work and $2 billion in expenses.
  That's because there's disagreement about the purpose and scope of the
space station Freedom, a $32 billion laboratory to be operational by 1998.
  "It's being sold as one very large structure to do multiple things," says
David Webb, a National Commission on Space member.  "What we need are multiple
space stations."
  In congressional hearings this week, NASA officials defended their request
for $2 billion - twice last year's amount - to keep work going.
  NASA confidently touts Freedom as "The Next Logical Step."  Envisioned:
a science lab, processing workshop, observatory and an outpost for moon or
Mars missions.
  Japan, Canada and Europe are partners in the station, twice as big as the
Soviet Mir.  A final design is due in 1992.
  NASA Administrator James Fletcher says: "You can't do manned exploration in
space without the station."
  Some say NASA is going in the wrong direction.
  The United States could build a bigger space station for less money by using
spent external tanks from the shuttle, says Eugene Meyers, author of "External
Tank Solutions," out in July.
  Each tank - eight times the volume of Freedom - is jettisoned just short of
orbit and burns up in the atmosphere.  "It would be more profitable all
around to put these tanks to work," says Meyers.
  Others, like Webb, advocate several smaller stations, each with a
specific purpose.

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

Date: 3 Mar 89 15:39:00 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu![e-mail]  (Peter Owings)
Subject: Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology


    I just can't believe that someone still takes astrology serious
enough to study it...

    Peter..

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

Date: 3 Mar 89 01:40:09 GMT
From: ubvax!weitek!sci![e-mail]  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate


Hmm.  That reminds me.  I was reading in the SMITHSONIAN BOOK OF FLIGHT
(fun book) that the Wright brothers had just about killed the US airplane
business with lawsuits over patent violations.  As a result, the Europeans
moved into the forefront of airplane development, despite the initial
US lead.  I don't know how applicable this is to the privitization of
space, but can imagine parallels.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

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

Sender: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM
Date: 3 Mar 89 11:02:48 PST (Friday)
Subject: Immune System at 0G
From: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]


Anybody notice the survey article in the current Analog which points out
that time at 0G may depress the human immune system?

Bob Swenson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Mar 89 18:40:06 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE TURNED OFF

[e-mail] (Jeffrey Wasrud) writes:
>
>A previous posting duplicated the letter many people recieved from the
>president of EOSAT, confirming the shutdown of Landsats 4 and 5.  I
>beg you to write and/or call and/or fax your opinions to your
>congressional delegates and all others concerned.
>
>Landsat has proven to be the most economical way to collect remotely
>sensed data.

How can something be called "economical" when there are not enough
paying users to cover operating expenses, much less amortize the cost
of building and launching the satellites?  Indeed, what is the
relevance of the asking price for Landsat tapes when their operation is
subsidized?

>For seventeen years we have shown the world pictures of itself, in
>good times and in bad, in order that we may make rational decsions
>about our precious, limited resources.

The latest decision of Congress is, apparently, that Landsat is not a
good use for our precious, limited resources.  There are not enough
paying customers for the supposedly important information Landsat
provides.

Ask yourself this: if Landsat is such a great investment, why can't
EOSAT raise money itself to keep the satellites operating?

>Would we have known as much about Chernobyl without satellites?

Arguably, yes.  Glasnost, you know.  Landsat images provided little
information.

>I'm tired and I ramble.  I am ashamed today to be an American.  I hope
>my congressman can make me proud again.

Reports in the press say former supporters of Landsat in Congress have
grown tired of endless subsidies and ever-receding breakeven points.
It doesn't help that studies have just come out saying that remote
sensing will not be profitable before the next century, if then.
Yet another over-hyped space industry.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Mar 89 18:48:26 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick![e-mail]  (A Ruaraidh Gillies)
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>>...  There is no justification whatever
>>for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit.  The Soviet Union
>>shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score
>>political points...
>
>They aren't any more; all future foreign cosmonauts will be paying
>passengers.  It would surprise me greatly if Orbit Productions got a free
>ride.  Almost certainly they will be asked to pay the commercial price
>for their trip.
>
>What, pray tell, is wrong with carrying people into orbit for a fee?
>The airlines carry senators, teachers, and singers into the sky all the
>time.  "Things that make profits don't have to make excuses."

The fact is that there's a helluva difference between airlines sending up
non-airline people and space agencies sending up non-space people. Sure, it's
exciting and if I got the chance I'd jump at it like a shot, but the fact
is that at the moment pure passenger space flights are unfeasible. When the
Wrights got their plane working in 1912 they weren't trying to book passengers
within 24 hours (despite what Bob Newhart came up with in "Merchandising
the Wright Brothers"!). NASA, ESA and whoever control Soviet, Chinese, etc
space flights are not yet *ready* to start into human commerce. Remember, the
Challenger tragedy put back the US space program by 32 months. On the 25th
Shuttle flight, it all went wrong. It took *loads* more than 25 flights before
airliners were conceived, and now they are so common that although
disasters happen, people will still step on a plane the next day.

Challenger alerted the world to the fact that space travel is not the easiest
thing in the world, and should not be taken for granted. Until it is, we
should stick to what it's best for - satellite launches, and the
'enclosing' of our world.

"Statistics prove that flying is the safest way to travel - I don't know
how much consideration they've given to walking." (Shelly Berman)
+============================================================================+
Contact me on:     | Ruaraidh Gillies   |"The world is peopled by many minds
 [e-mail] | 2nd year Comp Sci  | whirling faster than the wind
  or               | Warwick University | Solving a dilemma of life and death
 [e-mail]  | Coventry CV4 7AL   | trying to make some sense of it all"
                   | Great Britain      |   Good luck, bad luck (H. Jones)
+============================================================================+

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

Date: 4 Mar 89 03:13:50 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!jhunix![e-mail]  (Thomas G Edwards)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

Concerning the Shuttle-C, if it indeed is a heavy lift vehicle,
my opinion is that we need it in a serious way.

Our current space shuttle is an example of huge amounts of thrust...
with much of it not aimed at carrying the payload, but using much
to launch the aerodynamic surfaces and passenger compartment.

To sum up what the space program needs:
1)  Manned missions are needed, for a human hand is still one of the
    best tool positioning devices we have.
    However, we do not need a re-usable shuttle to have a manned mission.

2)  Satellite retrieval is needed (though perhaps max 5 times a year!)
    This is a job which the shuttle excels at.

3)  Unmanned Heavy Lift Vehicles are needed, to get things of
    large size into orbits without making many launches
    with human assembly (which would probably be more costly and
    dangerous).

4)  Which type of space vehicle should be used to deliver small
    satellites?  The space shuttle _can_ do it, but is it
    really cheaper than smaller reusable rockets over the long
    run? This needs to be answered.

-Thomas G. Edwards

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

Date: 4 Mar 89 18:19:29 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Babies born in space.

I would like to have some informations on the following subject:

What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space,
who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few
years in space ?

Could anyone tells me if any studies have been made on the
reaction of the immune system, psychology, agility under 0g
conditions and problems that he/she would have on hearth,
bornwith instinctive reactions... etc..

Thanks,

Jean-Marc Debaud.
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Mar 89 18:47:34 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Paul L Schauble):
> While it may be possible to build a robot hand with present or near future
> technology, it won't be useful for space operations.

How about several years old technology? They've been around for a
while now. Check out the Utah/MIT hand for instance.

> The had will very
> likely be the most complicated, delicate, and least reliable piece of
> equipment on the space station. This will likely be true for a very long
> time to come.

I'd like to know what you base this on. You don't seem to know that
robot hands exist. So I suspect you don't know how they are built.
What pieces of equipment are you comparing it against? They look
tougher, and simpler, than human hands to me.

            Bob P.

Need to change my .signature file.

    The world is already wierder than science fiction CAN imagine.

--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

        Reality is what you make of it.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #283
*******************