Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_1/V12_120.ZIP/V12_120

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EafH=cK00VcJQ1Ak4M>;
          Wed, 25 Jul 1990 01:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <YafH=9q00VcJM1=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 1990 01:48:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #120

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
            Re: World Space Agency
                 Re: Freedom
             Re: Weather Control
          SECOND CALL FOR DISCUSSION: misc.engineers
            Re: Balloons, anyone?
       Re: Free Space Station - spacious but needs work
        Re: Soviet shuttle, did it fly more than once?
   Re: Simulation satellite? (was NASA Headline News for 07/17/90)
            Re: Balloons, anyone?
            Re: Balloons, anyone?
            Re: Balloons, anyone?
          Re: space news from June 11 AW&ST

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Jul 90 14:11:58 GMT
From: rochester!rit!moscom![e-mail]  (Jim Watson)
Subject: Re: World Space Agency

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary) writes:
>
>Instead of a UN style organization, maybe what is needed is a "limited
>partnership" arrangement. One party would organize it (the UN, Japan,
>you, it doesn't matter). Management would be hired. Countries would
>contribute capital (financial, human and technological) and take out
>profits (financial, technological) in proportion to their contributions.
>The organization would be run by its management, *not* by the contributing
>nations, who could drop out and take back their capital if they didn't
>like the way things were going.

   That's just asking for another CYA oriented bureaucratic mess.  This type
of organization would inevitably work toward making their contributors happy
and forget what their real job is.

Jim

Just this reporters pessimistic opinion.

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 01:36:01 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Freedom

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SIMMONS DONALD F) writes:
>
>     Who named the space station Freedom anyway?

NASA selected the name "Freedom" a few years ago (before the latest
round of budget cuts) when there was still a plan to build a new, giant
launch complex to support the station's construction and maintenance.

The launch complex was, of course, to have been named ...

"Maxi-Pad"


--
"NASA Announces New Deck Chair Arrangement For   \_/  Tom Neff
Space Station Titanic" -- press release 89-7654  \_/  [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 15:10:01 GMT
From: csusac!csuchico.edu![e-mail]  (Ralph Reid)
Subject: Re: Weather Control


Does a particular change really have to be wide spread to have wide
spread effects?  If an orbital mirror could focus a beam of star light
into a body of water, could cloud formation result (assuming a fairly
stagnant but large body of water is chosen)?  Could this effect be
sustained from the planet surface?

--
Ralph.
ARS: N6BNO
Compuserve: [e-mail]
email: [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 17:31:58 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: SECOND CALL FOR DISCUSSION: misc.engineers

SECOND CALL FOR DISCUSSION: misc.engineers
(was talk.engineering.education)

The name has been changed per numerous comments.  The charter also
has been changed as well, to accommodate as many comments as possible:

(1) To discuss strengths and weaknesses in engineering education.
(2) To inform participants of interesting university programs or
    curriculums.
(3) To help participants to prepare for advancement academically
    and professionally.
(4) To help participants to increase public awareness of engineering.
(5) To apply problem-solving techniques to the elimination of
    educational and job-related problems.

The status is still unmoderated.  Contact me with comments/questions.
The call for votes will be held on or about 08/10.

Ronald E. Graham
NASA Lewis Research Center
[e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 21:57:06 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Andrew Higgins)
Subject: Re: Balloons, anyone?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>...My question to you is: Does anyone think this [a balloon]
>could serve as an inexpensive 'first stage' for a small rocket? Could
>a rocket be built under this weight and that could go the extra 250 km to
>low-earth orbit? (The books I've found mention that this altitude is
>above 99% of the atmosphere, so aerodynamic drag can be ignored).

I think this is the fourth in the last two years time I've posted the
following history of balloon launched rockets.  Does this qualify for
the "Frequently Asked Question List"?

Anyway, here it is:

This idea of a "rockoon" has been around for quite a while.  It was
pioneered by Dr. James Van Allen (forgive me, Henry) in 1952 for cosmic ray
research.

In 1957, the Air Force fired a series of balloon-suspended rockets into
space.  Known as Project Farside, the experiments were a pioneering
achievement and succeeded in setting an altitude record which remained
unbroken even after Sputnik I.

The Farside vehicle was lifted to an altitude of 100,000 ft by a large
helium-filled polyethylene balloon.  The rocket itself consisted of four
solid fueled stages (Thiokol Recruits and Arrow II's) with a small (4 X 6
inches) payload package.

The six Farside tests were conducted from the remote Eniwetok Atoll (yes,
the same as the first megaton H-bomb test) at the Marshall Islands in the
Fall of 1957.  The balloon-rocket assembly took two hours to rise to the
designated altitude.  The rockets were spectacularly launched *through* the
balloon (the Air Force captured some impressive ground based pictures).
Because the rocket was already above 90% of the Earth's atmosphere, the
vehicle was allowed to accelerated at a rate which would burn up a similar
ground launched vehicle.  The total duration of powered flight was around
30 seconds.

Unfortunately, the rocket traveled too fast for radar tracking, so altitude
was judged by crude optical and radio means.  The highest officially
recorded altitude was 3,100 miles, although the vehicle could have easily
reached 4,000 miles.

The payloads on the Farside rockets were alternated between magnetometers
and Geiger counters.  Had the most successful Farside launch carried a
Geiger counter rather than a magnetometer, it very likely would have
discovered the Van Allen radiation belts.

More elaborate plans were drawn up for Farside II, which would have been
able to deliver a payload to the Moon, thus living true to its name.
Farside II, however, was not able to compete with the Thor Able Moon
rocket, which was chosen for the job in January 1958.  Farside II never got
farther than the design stage.

After the IGY, larger rockets became more accessible, and the ideal of
balloon launched rockets slipped out of vogue, with the exception of a
single Japanese firing in 1961.  The Japanese continue to use balloons to
test launch scaled models of the H-II.
--
 Andrew J. Higgins              |     Illini Space Development Society
 [e-mail]              |     a chapter of the National Space Society
 phone: [phone]-0321   |     at the University of Illinois
          P.O. Box 2255 - Station A, Champaign, IL  61825
"The ability of man to walk and actually live on other worlds has virtually
 assured mankind immortality."            - Wernher von Braun

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 02:00:13 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Free Space Station - spacious but needs work

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>
>Since converting an empty ET to a workspace would be time-consuming (putting in
>pipes, wiring, equipment, etc), is it possible to put in the tank _before_
>filling it?  The piping and wiring shouldn't interfere with the flow in the
>tank.
>
>With all the structures and large equipment pre-installed, turning the ET into
>a viable space lab should be relatively easy.  Attach the dividers (velcro?),
>snap the equipment into the brackets, and that's it.  :)
>
>Is there any reason that much of this work can't be done before launch?

You'd have to do a LOT of stress recalculation as to all the stuff you put
in the tank and it'd probably be more headaches that it would be worth to
certify the thing "safe" for launch. Not to mention the a loss of VOLUME of
propellent (mass, whatever), combine with an increased MASS of the main tank.

Good try. Maybe constructing the inside "modular" with snap-in brackets & some
sort of basic building-block approach would work without adding too much mass
to the external tank.

                Doug

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 16:36:05 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet shuttle, did it fly more than once?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael A. Simpkins) writes:
>Didn't I read on the net  a couple a weeks ago that Buran would fly no more?
>I thought the article said that next years mission will be a new orbiter...

There is some confusion on this because the whole system is now named
"Buran" as well, apparently.  I guess it's better than yet another TLA
(Three Letter Acronym).  The original orbiter is indeed being retired,
apparently because (a la Enterprise) it is now considered too far below
full flight specs.
--
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 16:01:08 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Simulation satellite? (was NASA Headline News for 07/17/90)

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond):
> Does anyone know abour "Australia's simulation sattelite"?
[ Launched on CZ-2E]

The Chang Zheng 2E launch vehicle was specially designed
to take Western payloads and upper stages. The first operational
launch will take a Hughes HS601 comsat, Aussat B1, into orbit in 1991.
This month's test launch carried a dummy model of the Aussat satellite
and its perigee motor, with similar size and mass, to test out
the launch environment. Aussat B1 will be owned by Aussat Pty,
an Australian company. (I'm not sure whether they will buy it from
Hughes on the ground or in orbit). However, the simulation satellite
was probably built by the Chinese, or possibly it was provided
by Hughes - I haven't managed to find out which yet. The news
story should have read 'simulation of Australia's satellite', not
'Australia's simulation satellite' - although I guess that the model
is as much a copy of any HS601 satellite like e.g. Galaxy 7,
rather than particularly of Aussat B1.

- Jonathan McDowell

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 07:53:06 GMT
From: maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!matt.ksu.ksu.edu![e-mail]  (Jerry Anderson)
Subject: Re: Balloons, anyone?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Zimdars) writes:

>While a balloon may give you a substantially portion of altitude necessary
>for orbit it would not give you the velocity.  It is the development of
>orbital velocity that requires the substantial amount of the thrust produced
>by the booster.

I don't really have a feel for this subject, but surely the velocity of a
B-52 is not a significant fraction of orbital velocity, is it?  The balloon
idea would mostly just get you above most atmospheric drag, with a bonus of
20-25 miles altitude.

So is the avoidance of (most) atmospheric drag of much help?  What can you
do with 10,000 pounds starting with zero velocity from 100,000 feet?  Does
anybody have any ideas?

--
And he was always such a *nice* boy.              Jerry J. Anderson
                                                  Computing Activities
BITNET:   jerry@ksuvm                             Kansas State University
Internet: [e-mail]                     Manhattan, KS  66506

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 05:36:46 GMT
From: shelby!portia.stanford.edu![e-mail]  (David Zimdars)
Subject: Re: Balloons, anyone?

While a balloon may give you a substantially portion of altitude necessary
for orbit it would not give you the velocity.  It is the development of orbital
velocity that requires the substantial amount of the thrust produced by
the booster.  A balloon would not only have to lift the payload, but
the booster to put the payload into orbit.  I would be afraid that this would
require a truly enormous balloon for all but the smallest payloads.

This is not to say that launching a booster from altitude is not a bad idea.
The new Pegasus booster, which I believe has a payload capacity of about
400kg is launched from beneath the wing of a modified B52 bomber at
arround 50,000 ft (I'm not certain of this number).  A B52 can carry quite
a bit more weight than a balloon however, and it can also fly in
the direction of the intended orbit, which reduces, slightly, the velocity
the booster itself must give the payload.
-David Zimdars

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 15:32:12 GMT
From: dftsrv!nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Mike Krajnak)
Subject: Re: Balloons, anyone?


    My "Sourcebook on space Sciences" (1965!) states that several
rocket-balloon combinations (called "rockoons") were successfully
launched from May to September 1952.  they were used for high altitude
cosmic ray research.  the flights were originally proposed by M. L.
Lewis, G. Halvorsen, S. F. Singer, and J. Van Allen in 1949, based on
an idea originally suggested by Oberth.  The altitude from which the
rockets were launced was about 80,000 feet.

    Presumably, if you can find more information on these flights it
might be useful.  Unfortunately, the "Sourcebook" doesn't give any
references.
                                                       -Mike

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

Date: 24 Jul 90 13:30:49 GMT
From: mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: space news from June 11 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

    [Many items of interest deleted]

>Astro-1 shuttle mission slips badly as Columbia rolled back to VAB due
>to hydrogen leak.  This will take some juggling, as both active VAB bays
>are already occupied.  The pad with partly-stacked SRBs for STS-40 (Spacelab
>Life Sciences) will be parked either on pad 39B or near the VAB for the
>moment, to clear High Bay 3.  High Bay 1 is occupied by Atlantis.
>is more normally used for photographing Soviet and US satellites,

    It strikes me that this would be a particularly poor time to
have a fire in the VAB [Not that there'd ever be a *good* time for one].
My brother, who is the Chemical dept. Stores Superviser at UW, has
commented [at length] to me about the interesting tendency for fires
and mishaps to occur at important bottlenecks [ie; the fires *never*
occur in an area where they would only damage an electrical system, if
by occuring 2m away they could trash a water pipeline and communication
cable as well]. I think this is the Manichean theory of disaster prediction.
This, of course, doesn't pretain to the VAB, since I'd bet it has damage
control systems on damage control systems. I wonder what the VAB would cost
to duplicate, these days, though...
                                JDN

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #120
*******************