Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_5/V13_521.ZIP/V13_521

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 9KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/wc:XzB:00WBw0BFE5B>;
          Fri, 10 May 91 02:38:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 02:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #521

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 521

Today's Topics:
              Re: Why the space station?
       Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket.
             Re: Another Galileo Sulution
           Re: LIFE article on Mars Terraformation
              Re: Ethics of Terraforming

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 7 May 91 17:47:40 GMT
From: rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:
>[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>>Perhaps now that the scientists have said, in effect, that they don't
>>want Freedom, the design could be moved back toward the initial goals
>>of supporting lunar and planetary exploration.

>  A dedicated assembly platform would probably be less expensive than a
>  dedicated micro-g/life sciences platform.

>  what we need to look at is how the station would be
>  different if we 'only' wanted to process vehicles and conduct only the
>  essential science necessary to support exploration.

>  If you look at pictures of the station as conceived in the mid 80's, you
>  see a 'dual keel' design with keels and booms built off the transverse
>  boom. The keels were covered with all sorts of attached payloads,
>  satellite repair facilities, etc.

>  Plans for
>  'Phase II' have faded from memory over the years, to the point where we have
>  what we have today. A 'dedicated micro-g life sciences platform.'

>  Given the station we have today, there's not a whole lot of extra
>  capability that you could cut if you were to decide that SSF was going to
>  be dedicated to the support of lunar and planetary exploration. You still
>  need to habitation space, the power generation capability, and the limited
>  lab space of the current design.

How about cutting the materials science research altogether?  For that
matter, since the ESA and NASDA modules are going to be devoted to
research, how about eliminating the lab space and power requirements
from the NASA modules and doing the life sciences research in the
ESA/NASDA modules?

The NASA modules could then be optimized for on-orbit assembly/service
procedures, including:

    * Human EVA
    * Teleoperated manipulators
    * Autonomous robots

Using each where appropriate to the specific task.

>  PMC is pretty much the minimum
>  viable permanently manned station one can come up with given the constraints
>  imposed by launch vehicle, the current program structure, contracts already
>  awarded, consideration of sunk cost, and politics.

Hmmm...  Interesting that only one of these constraints (the launch
vehicle) is technical.  I wonder whether it wouldn't be cheaper (and
faster) to start over from scratch.

Why not put together a small (!) team of experts (technical personnel,
not bureaucrats) from the various NASA centers (and perhaps other
labs, companies, and universities, as well) to design a space station
with clear goals in mind (orbital support of lunar/planetary
exploration) -- with the only constraints being engineering, cost, and
time?

If this were done right, it might not even delay construction.  (Is
first element launch still scheduled for 1995?)  In fact, given the
remaining budget ($26 billion) and time (nine years to PMC) of the
current station, I would be surprised if such a team couldn't come up
with a station that was much better suited to the goals of space
exploration.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 7 May 91 17:57:16 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!den.mmc.com!magellan![e-mail]  (Brett B. Doehr)
Subject: Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David William Vrona) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
|> >
|> >Atlas has a rather unreliable history and I would guess General Dynamics
|> >
|> This is a ridiculous statement.  The Atlas has been a workhorse since the
|> 60's.  Name another platform that has put more payloads into space.
|> --
Well, I'm not positive, but I believe the Titan has put up more payloads over
the past thirty years.  As far as the bit about unreliable history, it is the
unfortunate truth that all of the major ELVs have had their occasional problems
over the years.  I believe in 1986 we witnessed failures of the shuttle, Atlas,
Titan, Delta, and Ariane.  Build a better rocket and the world will beat a path
to your door...


--Brett.

============================================================|
Brett B. Doehr           Martin Marietta Astronautics Group |
Voice: [phone]           Internet: [e-mail] |
Fax:   [phone]               America Online: BrettBD |
    "Writing software that only a mother could love..."     |
============================================================|

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 19:52:39 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Another Galileo Sulution

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
>Another possibility would be to launch a relay station into a trajectory
>aimed directly at Galileo, thus the relative position between it and
>Galileo remain unchanged. Relay-1 can then take on the task of tracking
>Earth. Later, as Relay-1 gets far enough away from Earth, Relay-2 can
>be launched to follow behind Relay-1 making it theoretically possible to
>follow Galileo as long as we keep launching relay probes.
>
>This approach would be ideal for following either Voyager 1 or 2, since
>both are far enough away from here to make their 22 watt signals increasing
>difficult and unreliable to receive.

I suggested this at one time, especially for those days where the rain in
Spain washes out the Deep Space Network :-) Oh well...half-way on target.


     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date:         Fri, 10 May 91 00:30:24 EDT
From: Frank Lalonde <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: LIFE article on Mars Terraformation
To: Submissions <[e-mail]>

I'm no scientist in space research, and therefore, would like to have opinions
on something...

I recently read an article on the Terraformation of Mars in the May 1991 issue
of LIFE magazine. I would like to know how realistic or accurate this article
was from those of you who might have read the article and have some expertise
in the field.

KEEP IN TOUCH!!!

************************************
*                                  *
*         Francois Lalonde         *
*       University of Ottawa       *
*    [e-mail]     *
*                                  *
************************************

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 16:48:59 MST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Caplinger)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming

An interesting science fictional view of the reactions to the
terraforming of Mars can be found in the novella "Green Mars" by Kim
Stanley Robinson.  This was reprinted in the 3rd Annual Best Annual SF
Collection and also in an Ace Double about three years ago.

    Mike Caplinger, ASU/Caltech Mars Observer Camera Project
    [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #521
*******************