Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_6/V9_604.ZIP/V9_604

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.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/IYuH5fS00UkVM1Xk4k>;
          Wed, 16 Aug 89 05:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 05:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #604

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 604

Today's Topics:
          Re: does this proposal make sense
            Re: Questions about Apollo 11
              Re: Future probe to Pluto
       Re: Eggs & baskets (was: Does this proposal make sense?)
                Eggs & baskets
          Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
             Hipparchos satellite
           Aircraft Encounters (Was Re: Satellites)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 07:33:40 GMT
From: psitech![e-mail]  (david Fridley)
Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense

times how much he/she is willing to put up, All added up.

The one reason that most people SHOULD be interested in a space station
has to do with not keeping all your eggs in one basket.  How far along
are we on rendering this place uninhabitable?  How long would it take
to finish the job? (answer: 20 minutes). If there were a population
living in space, then OUR RACE is less vulnerable to extinction.

How much am I willing to put towards a space station?  Well, I must admit
that it is proportional to the chances of my getting to go.  Let's say that
I could easilly be talked out of $1000 a year, even if the probability is
low.  If I absolutely would get to go, it's worth everything I'll earn
less living expences.

Let Me pull a few numbers out of a hat.  Let's GUESS that a reasonable
self sufficient space station that will support 35,000 people will cost
$35,000,000,000.  I know this guess is wrong, maybe its 70 billion or 100,
but I believe this is within 1 order of magnatude (less than 350 billion).

If we sold apartments, then they would go for $1,000,000 each.  OK, $1 million
seems like a lot to me, not that it wouldn't be worth it, just that I don't
know where I could get it.  But, the space station isn't ready yet so may be I
could earn it along the way.  Next guess: how long will it take to build
it, starting NOW. Well, knowing something about engineering the answer is alot
longer than I think, so I'll guess 20 years, hoping that it's only 10, Lets
call completion for 2010 (I'll be 48, let's hope I stay in shape.).  Now we are
talking about $50,000 a year.  That's still too muct, but it is less ominous.

Consider that this is a coporation, and not just a bunch of individuals trying
to buy appartments in space.  What do we have to get along the way in order to
build this housing tract.  Well, the first thing that comes to mind is
LAUNCH CAPACITY.  And not a puny 1 launch every 2 months, but several
launches per week.  Consider only transporting 35,000 people to orbit.  If we
could do it 100 at a time, a huge number compared to how many we currently
put up at once, that is 350 launches.  That alone is 1 launch every 3 weeks
over the twenty years of the project, and more likely it is one launch a day
for the last year of the project.  So, if we do this we are going to
be experts in launch capacity, we'll have to be.  It will probably also be
necessary to be experts in more than one type of launch vehicle, since our
schedules will be highly dependent on deliveries.  Lets say that we get into
shuttles and linear accelerators (the best time to start linear accelerators
is when high temperature super conductors come to life, but we could start
with the nitrogen cooled type).

As for the laws imposed by the US, I see no reason to limit participation
to US citizens.  In fact, if we build a linear accelerator there are many
better places outside the US.

I'm sure that there are many other spinnoff enterprises related to building
a space station.  Ideas are encouraged.

I have only one other question.  What can a Space station export, cheeply, in
order to facilitate trade Earth?  The first answer I think of is software.
There is no advantage to doing it in space, but there is no disadvantage.
Ideas are encouraged.

--
david.
DISCLAIMER: If it's important have a backup.  If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Proceed at your own risk.  My oponions are MY own.  Spelling does not count.
My fondest dream is to leave this planet.

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 21:08:42 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com!gary.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

The rocket that is shown exploding at the end of _Koyaanisquatsi_ (not sure of spelling
either) is NOT a Saturn V, or a Saturn anything.

It is an early Atlas Centaur flight. As the first flight vehicle to use LH2/LOX propellants,
it had more than its share of inflight catastrophic self disassemblies. The piece that is
followed down is the Atlas main engine (or sustainer if you prefer).

Gary Hughes
hughes @star.dec.com

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 23:06:58 GMT
From: frooz![e-mail]  (Doug Mink, OIR)
Subject: Re: Future probe to Pluto

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Raymond Lister):
>
> Okay ...  Voyager II can't get a gravity assist off Neptune to reach
> Pluto ...  So when is the next opportunity to go to Pluto?  Grand Tour
> planetary "alignments" only occur every 175 years. BUT ...
>
> The following is from the British Interplanetary Society's magazine
> "Spaceflight", January 1984, in the section "Space at JPL", by William
> McLaughlin ...
>    [omitted to save space]
> The current launch window has been missed, but if they launch in 2001, I'll
> see pictures of Pluto just before I retire.

Last month I got a notice through the Plutologists grapevine that there
is a possibility of a launch to Pluto in 1997 or 1998 with an Earth
gravity assist three years later and a Pluto encounter (too much velocity
for orbit) in 2013 or 2014.  It was up against such projects as the
Lunar Polar Orbiter for a new start, however, so I doubt if it was
selected by NASA in this year's planning session.  Total cost is
estimated at $500, the same cost as the Lunar Orbiter.  The Pluto probe
would be a clone of the Cassini orbiter launched on a Titan4/Centaur.

My personal opinion, despite being something of a Plutophile, is that the
LPO is more important, but that a Pluto probe should be the next planetary
probe to be considered.

Doug Mink
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Internet:  [e-mail]
SPAN:      cfa::mink
BITNET:    mink@cfa
Phone:     [phone]
FTS:       830-7408
USMail:    CfA, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138

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

Date: 1 Aug 89 02:19:48 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekred!speed![e-mail]  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Re: Eggs & baskets (was: Does this proposal make sense?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pezely) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>Completely unbelievable.  The NASA space station is going to cost
>>$30B+, and support (sort of) maybe a dozen people.  You propose
>>something 1000 times larger for the same amount of money, and you want
>>it to be completely self sufficient as well?  Not anytime soon, bucko.
>
>I thought that the discussion about NASA prices versus corporate prices
>was over.  :-)
Hardley :-(...  WHEN corporation actually start launching commerically. Then
we can actually about comparisons.  I'm a very big fan of AmeRoc and SSI (both
the launch group and space techies)..  I was really sorry to hear about
George Koopman death.  A TRUE space visionary and was luckly to talk with him
about space at various conventions.

>
>Although I do agree that a space station THAT SIZE is a bit
>large ito be seen in our life times, a 100 to 500 person space station
>is feasible.  And, with one station in orbit, components can be
>'shipped' to it to construct other stations of similar size.  That leads
>to answering the original of space station exportation: construction.
>
>It's much easier to ship parts than the completed item.  Also, wouldn't
>most manufactures rather assemble their products in a zero-gravity
>environment instead of on the ground?

Depends on what you're building ..
>
>Primarily, the 'product' which will be exported will be research.
>Chemists would just love to be able to conduct experiments without
>containers.  Astronomers would kill for spot to put their scopes.
>Composite manufacturers would be curious to see what happens to certain
>materials if they are constructed without the imperfections that gravity
>introduces.  And so on.
>
>- Daniel

Dan, I like your enthusiam.  You're going to need it to get through the times
ahead.  I want nothing more than go into space.  But you aren't going to
get 1000 engineers together to build a project.  Most of your ideas have
been shooting around for years. I personally recommend you contact the SSI group
building a lunar satellite.  Someone on the net should have some info. I would post
it but it's home in Seattle ;-(.  Get some experience on a space related
engineering project. Learn the in and outs... 1 Person can still change the
world.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your objective. Rather I'm just trying to
temper you somewhat.  Hell if you could house and feed me and 999 engineers,
I don't think you would have hard time convincing us to help build a ship to leave
Earth.  But a good friend of mind in Chi-town has finally beaten it into me,
It's going to be a long haul...

Since we really don't have much of choice about leaving currently.  There are
things we can do now to help.  Support the Space Transport bill. (YES HENRY
and DALE S. and BILL H.and BAXTER and whoever else) I'm actually going and visiting
my congressperson (good god i cann't live with the guilt nor longer Capn') Although
I perfer engineering problems to political or economical problems.

Another altenative is to follow those people who get picked up by UFOs all the
time. We wait for one to land, make contact with the aliens and do one of the
following :
1. Tell them we're just hitchiking through and could we get a ride to the nearest
   space port.
2. Sell them a great piece of archecture known as the brooklyn bridge for
   a small plantary shuttle.
3. If you knew when one was landing, hold sf world con there .  And during the
   confusion steal their ship.


Larry Brader :: [e-mail]
Tektronix nor anyone else is responsible for my views.
The US spent >$70B for the B2 = 2 space stations ($30B)
and 3 shuttles ($3B) with $1B left over.

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 16:35:23 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Eggs & baskets

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (david Fridley) writes:

>The one reason that most people SHOULD be interested in a space station
>has to do with not keeping all your eggs in one basket.  How far along
>are we on rendering this place uninhabitable?  How long would it take
>to finish the job? (answer: 20 minutes). If there were a population
>living in space, then OUR RACE is less vulnerable to extinction.

I have a hard time imagining how a nuclear war or chemical pollution
could render the Earth any less habitable than space already is.
Remember: space has dangerous radiation, no ozone layer, no running
water, no breathable air.  Sure, you can shield & make your own
consumables, but you can do that on Earth too, for a lot less money.

>Let Me pull a few numbers out of a hat.  Let's GUESS that a reasonable
>self sufficient space station that will support 35,000 people will cost
>$35,000,000,000.  I know this guess is wrong, maybe its 70 billion or 100,
>but I believe this is within 1 order of magnatude (less than 350 billion).

Completely unbelievable.  The NASA space station is going to cost
$30B+, and support (sort of) maybe a dozen people.  You propose
something 1000 times larger for the same amount of money, and you want
it to be completely self sufficient as well?  Not anytime soon, bucko.

>I have only one other question.  What can a Space station export, cheeply, in
>order to facilitate trade Earth?  The first answer I think of is software.
>There is no advantage to doing it in space, but there is no disadvantage.
>Ideas are encouraged.

Software is labor intensive.  Labor in space is incredibly expensive,
and will, IMHO, likely remain more expensive than labor on Earth for
quite some time.  The idea of making software in space is a nonstarter.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 18:16:04 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:

            ...........................

> All in all I think it would be best to build observatories with human
> labor, on the Moon's visible side near the limb.  That way Earth is just
> a cookie on the horizon without significant observing impact, but you
> get direct data feeds.  With humans building it, you can get clever and
> work out solutions to the dust and debris problems, and anchor it firmly
> so calibration can be held at a minimum.

I do not know who made the suggestion, I believe it was the late Willy Ley,
but the idea was to use a fixed parabolic mirror with a movable flat reflector
to direct the light to the curved mirror.  The two advantages of this are
that the curved mirror could use a lighter and less complicated mount, and
that the expensive curved mirror would not be exposed to micrometeorites,
etc.  A movable mount for a flat mirror would be relatively cheap, and
replacement flat mirrors would also.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 14:47:56 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Hipparchos satellite

I was making notes from an old article by Freeman Dyson and he referred
to a satellite named "Hipparchos" -- which was to be launched in 1985
to determine the positions of stars with high accuracy.  (I believe it
was an ESA project.)

Does anyone know the history of this project?

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | [phone]                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 1 Aug 89 01:35:48 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekred!speed![e-mail]  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Aircraft Encounters (Was Re: Satellites)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kendall Auel) writes:
>There was a lot of conjecture about what it was.  We talked about super-novas and
>satellites, and even UFO's.  As we sat and watched and talked (about another
>15 minutes), the object got brighter and brighter, and stayed in its fixed
>position.  Suddenly, it started moving upward, slowly then faster and faster.
>At the same time it got very bright, almost hard to look at.  Then came
>a thunderous scream as an F-4 phantom jet flew directly over our heads at
>low altitude.  Wow!
>
>Kendall Auel                       |  [e-mail]

Whew, this reminds me of working at Edwards Air Force Base.  A very interesting
place to visit and work at (even with my cynical attitude).

I worked in the radar signature building located at the left end of the main run way.
The pilots use to hit their after-burners and shoot straight up over our building.
After awhile I <almost> got use the hourly sonic boons over the building.  Although
one of the engineers looked a little nervous.  He keeped mentioning that all it took
was one little slip up and we would get more then their signature.

While there I also had a great seat for watching the shuttle land.  Had to get to work
4 hours early (~3am) to beat the traffic jam to Edwards. Well worth the effort ;-).
Also saw the Blue Angles practice. WOW !!!  (I don't think anyone got any work done
that week)

Unfortunately I saw the B1 (I think it was prototype #3 ) crash.  It was doing a low
altitude turn when the wing on the left side wouldn't rise again, and then the plane
began to topple.  Found out latter the reason for the crash.  A fuel pump was defective
and the fuel was stuck on the left side of the aircraft.   I never did find out why they
had that much fuel pumped to one side to begin with.  I can see how it would help
with the banking but isn't that what the flaps and rudders are for?? For one thing
the B1 isn't that cg sensitive as compared to the B2.
(as much as I work on aircraft, I could use some more aviation classes :)

Space related information... There's a valley next to Edwards that is used to test
rocket engines.  What is the name of that valley??  Talked with Bob Sanders an old
time rocket engineer ;-) about testing various engines.  They had an old sherman tank
used as refuge during a rocket test.  It always made him nervous, because they first
would have to get the snakes out of the tank.  And every now and then something would
hit the tank.

An interesting place to check out if you ever visit Edwards.  And Definitely talk
with the old timers ;-) ;-) ... even the snotnose wiseass kid can learn something ;-)


Larry Brader :: [e-mail]
Tektronix nor anyone else is responsible for my views.
The US spent >$70B for the B2 = 2 space stations ($30B)
and 3 shuttles ($3B) with $1B left over.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #604
*******************