Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_5/V13_539.ZIP/V13_539

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 21KB

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/Yc=X2W:00WBwM72E5k>;
          Mon, 13 May 91 02:22:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Qc=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 02:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #539

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 539

Today's Topics:
        An International Civil Space Agency 93
        Crater Found From 65-Million Year Old Asteriod
           Re: Advancing Launch Technology
              japans[Dese space research
        Space Station Growth (was 'Possible Fredlets')
Re: Launch Costs XXIV -- Wright Bros. Flyer to carry tanks to Kuwait!
          Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?
               2001 and "The Endeavor"
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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: 10 May 91 03:48:37 GMT
From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu![e-mail]
Subject: An International Civil Space Agency 93

**********************************************************************
*       United Space Federation, Inc.  Update for  9th of May 1      *
**********************************************************************
*            An International Civil Space Agency By 1993             *
*                    An Idea Whose Time Has Come !                   *
**********************************************************************

    To the Peoples of the World Community

    We are now endeavoring to raise 2 million dollars to fund and
support our present activities to create an International Civil Space
Agency by 1993.  We are also seeking solid support and commitment
from the International Political, Acedemic, Scientific, and Industrial
communities to make this dream a reality.  This effort must succeed
now more than at any other time before.  Millions of people around
the world in Industry, Technology, and Scientific related fields are
losing their jobs due to the collapse of the cold war between the
USSR and the USA.  The resulting effects have already created
terrible economic ripple effects around the world.  This trend will only
continue to worsen if something is not created and implemented,
NOW, to fill this large void.  This is not a simple matter of Nations just
stopping to build weapons, and presto world peace appears.  Some
international cooperative endeavor needs to be created to redirect
Industry, Technology, and Science related activities to more peaceful
and constructive purposes.  This should and must be done through
,and from, a strictly international perspective and guided by a civil
related agenda as the focus of its activities.  The experience and trust
that will be built between the Nations involved in this effort can, and
will, help bring about world peace in a realistic way.  Then and only
then can the world community ever hope to truly and effectively solve
such problems as global warming, world hunger, world environmental
problems, and the conversion from world dependence on fossil fuels
to non fossil fuels like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power.  Post Cold
War Earth will not remain at peace for much longer if present
industrial and economic levels are not maintained at, or above, those
levels which were created during the cold war.

    The answer is simple, the vision is clearly defined, the time is now,
the new frontier beckons mankind to taste its rewards and inherit all
its vast resources, the New America awaits those daring pilgrims who
seek to challenge the new frontier.  The new world order of peace and
prosperity for the coming century now rests in the hands of those who,
like columbus, sail on though the frantic cries from their crew,of
monsters and imagined dangers, swell up from the decks below, for
they see not the land of opportunity which lies but over the horizon, for
this a good ships capitan does see, and it is this knowledge that binds
the helmsman to his course, and when the new land has been come
upon how the crew do waddle in its riches and bark of their bravery
and accomplishments upon the voyage, but the ships captain can but
only breath a sigh of relief, for the new land has alas been reached,
and he has been spared the wrath of his merry crew.

                        Thank you for your time and support, Godspeed!
                                       Sincerely,
                                       Rick R. Dobson
                                       Founder and Executive Director
                                       UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, Inc.


                     E-MAIL:  BITNET     USF@CRNLVAX5
                              BITNET     USF@CORNELLA
                              INTERNET   [e-mail]
                              VAX        [e-mail]

                        MAILING ADDRESS:  UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC.
                                          INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
                                                  P.O. BOX 4722
                                         ITHACA, NEW YORK  14852-4722
                                        IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

Date: 10 May 91 02:03:54 GMT
From: agate!linus!think.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Crater Found From 65-Million Year Old Asteriod

CNN is running a story tonight about the asteriod that supposedly
killed off the dinosaurs 65-million years ago.  They report that
`scientists' have found the remains of a 102 mile wide crater left
by the impact.  The crater lies partly on the Yuctan, with much of
it submerged in the Gulf.

This is where it gets really wierd: CNN further reported that this
is evidence that a gigantic impact killed off the dinosaurs.  I was
under the impression that an impact was suspected to have happend
all along based on the Iridum layer, but that no one has connected
the extinction to the impact.  After all, there was an earlier massive
dinosaur extinction at then end of the Jurassic period, but no
suspected impact.

-john-

--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: 9 May 91 08:30:28 GMT
From: att!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Advancing Launch Technology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>[I write -- launch cost curve doesn't give efficient space colonization
>until beyond 2500]
>
>>You are asserting this? 2500? Are you smoking something?
>
>I am sorry it violates your wishes.  Now sit down, get the data for
>launch costs between 1957-1991, and fit the curve for yourself.
>You will find no more than a two order of magnitude drop by 2500,
>still well above the cost needed for affordable manned travel
>to GEO, L-5 and beyond (3-4 orders of magnitude, depending whose
>argument you use).
>The way we break out of the curve is by working towards more advanced
>launch and upper stage technology, not by wishful thinking and rehashing
>of the same old ideas and technologies.

Trying to extrapolate from the 1957-1991 curve is like trying to
extrapolate automobile costs from the 1885 Daimler and Benz to
the 1901 Olds curve. It ignores the 1908 to 1914 period that followed
where Henry Ford took basically the same technology and brought costs
down from that of a rich man's toy to everyman's car. The T wasn't
high tech compared to the 1901 Olds, just big, dumb, reliable, cheap,
and made in huge quanities.

Gary

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

Date: 30 Apr 91 12:13:23 GMT
From: uccba!ucqais.uc.edu![e-mail]  (Gary Raines)
Subject: japans[Dese space research


Watching the Astronomers last night, the segment highlighted the launching of
a rocket by Japan.  It was noted that the Japanese have been active in
rocketry for research since the 1960's.  Not being a follower of such things,
I was a little surprised to learn that Japan is such an active participant in
space research.  Although it makes a lot of sense considering the Japanese
general scientific and technical orientation.

Anyway, can someone fill me in on Japanese rocketry and space research?  Can
you recommend a reference?  What is the biggest payload they have launched?
The rocket in The Astronomers was small.  Do they have any plans on space
travel?  Has a Japanese ever been in space (with the USA or USSR)?
Send email if you feel there is no general interest in this topic.  Thanks.

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

Date: 10 May 91 13:05:07 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!sdd.hp.com!caen![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Space Station Growth (was 'Possible Fredlets')

[e-mail] writes:
>
>I have just been reading a copy of the space shuttle manifest, and I
>noticed the large number of labs that are intended to fly (Japanese, German
>and US spacelabs, intenational and US microgravity labs, there may be more
>(please add any you know about)). There has been some discussion on
>sci.space.shuttle about when the shuttle will be phased out (2000 - 2020) and
>I began to wonder if these labs could provide cheap extensions to SSF
>(assuming it's there to be extended). Any comments?

  There are currently no plans to do so. Interesting concept...

>By the way what are the current plans for extending Fred (again assuming it's
>there to be extended).

  Although we haven't yet developed specific growth configuration concepts
  (we plan to have candidate configs by the end of next week, however) we
  do have the 'growth phases' identified:

  [57kW, 4 crew PMC is the baseline configuration for growth]

  [Dates are in line with revised 90 Day Study timeline (lunar landing in
   2003 Mars landing in 2014). Strategy to accommodate Synthesis Group
   recommendations is TBD]


  - Eight man capability (~2001): additional power (75kW total), 8 crew,
    second short lab and hab modules, 2 additional nodes (requires approx 6
    HLLV or 6 STS augmentation flights following PMC)


  - Enhanced Operations Capability (EOC) (~2004): full life sciences/
    technology verification test bed. Includes thos elements/activities
    which support SEI Life Sciences research and SEI technology verification,
    but which are independent of the transportation node function (i.e. no
    vehicle processing capability)

    Additional power (100-125kW total), 12 crew, third short had, additional
    growth structure (requires approx 2 HLLV or 4 STS augmentation flights
    following EMC)

  - Lunar Vehicle Capability (LVC) (~2006): Lunar Transfer Vehilcle (LTV)
    steady state processing. Includes those activities/elements specific to
    the use of Space Station Freedom as a transportation node.

    Additional power (150-175kW total), 15 crew, fourth short hab, additional
    growth structure, LTV accommodations, advanced EMU and second airlock
    (requires approx 6 HLLV or 12 STS augmentations flights following EOC)

  (numbers of launches will depend on configuration and are only estimates
   at this point)

  There are currently no plans for dedicated Mars vehicle processing
  facilities on SSF, as it is anticipated such operations will be carried out
  off station (autonomous nuclear vehicles) or near the end of station's
  lifetime.

===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Date: 9 May 91 07:59:21 GMT
From: mintaka!ogicse!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Launch Costs XXIV -- Wright Bros. Flyer to carry tanks to Kuwait!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>If we want to cut costs we need to cut costs, not propose yet more $billions
>in the name of cutting costs.  It is well nigh impossible that government
>could do such a thing, much less want to do such a thing.  If industry wants
>to spend their own money on such a project, I'm every bit in favor of that.
>Meanwhile, government should concentrate on advancing the state of the
>art, not developing and operating chemical rockets.

I think NASA shouldn't be in the launcher business. Rather NASA should
be pushing the edges of the envelope and making their results available
in the public domain, both their successes and their failures. However,
I believe that one of those edges of the envelope happens to be cost
per pound to orbit and that another edge of the envelope is heavy lift
to orbit. Therefore NASA should vigorously persue a technical demonstration
program resulting in an ALS system designed to push both cost per pound and
heavy lift to the limits of 1990s technology. Resurrecting early 60's launcher
technology can be left as an exercise to private companies, if they can find
a market for such expensive heavy lift capability. An ALS demonstration
program can form the base for a real privately built heavy lift transportation
system that will benefit from thirty years of technological progress.

Unlike Nick, I believe that chemical rockets aren't some obsolete technology
that needs to be left behind. Rather, what needs to be left behind are
obsolete 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s designs for chemical rockets.

Blue sky like Rube Goldberg orbiting tethers, advanced nuclear and ion engines,
advanced solar sails, and the like should receive some long range attention as
well, but the critical need is cheap transport up out of the atmosphere for
heavy payloads. Without this space development will remain stymied with tiny
litesats and monsterously expensive one shot heavy scientific payloads
continuing to dominate space exploration. And inefficient first generation
manned shuttles and crippled Fred will continue to soak up the majority of
funding while contributing little to exploration and exploitation of space.
Given a low cost per pound heavy booster, a new generation reusable manned
top stage becomes an attractive replacement for the shuttles. And given
a low cost per pound heavy booster, a real space laboratory can be lofted
that will be capable of returning some real results. Not to mention the
real possibility of returning to the Moon to stay and a real program of
exploration of Mars and other interesting places in the solar system.
None of this is likely without that cheap heavy lift vehicle. Frankly,
laser launchers, geosync beanstalks, and the like are pipe dreams that
don't hold the near term promise offered by a good cheap heavy booster
system.

Gary

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

Date: 30 Apr 91 16:48:17 GMT
From: nih-csl!alw.nih.gov![e-mail]  (Sullivan)
Subject: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?


    Life magazine had a large story on the terraforming of Mars.
    I read it and it was rather informative for someone who has
    little knowlege on how terraforming would be done.  Still,
    I was wondering why we'd want to terraform a planet for human
    habitation when the gravity there is 1/4th of earth's.
    Wouldn't this cause problems for humans living there?  I
    would think that terraforming Venus is more practical as a goal
    since gravity is about the same, but I guess more difficult a task
    to accomplish.

    Is anyone looking at the terraforming of Venus?  How would it be
    accomplished?  What would be done to overcome the current
    violent conditions on Venus?  Is there anyway a catalyst could
    be dropped onto venus that would convert some atmospheric gases
    into something else?

    Jim Sullivan
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 May 91 04:59:43 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!carbon!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!pangea.Stanford.EDU![e-mail]  (Rick Ottolini)
Subject: 2001 and "The Endeavor"

The introduction of the Endeavor shuttle with the theme music from "2001"
was bitersweet to me.  When I first saw the movie, a year before the moon
landing, I thought many of the things in the movie would occur by that time.
It looks like they won't.  However, I'm happy the US space fleet has added
a new member.

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

Date: 10 May 91 02:20:31 GMT
From: widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>Well you got to remember an important factor here. NASA intends to spend
>>over ten billion dollars to build this thing. They need a LOT of trust to

>From what I understand, nobody is spending 10 billion bucks on this
>system.  I thought the whole thing got demoted to spending a few hundred
>million on engine research and feasibility studies.

Nope. NLDP (which is not ALS but it is the new launcher program) is
a ten+ year program and will cost ten to fifteen billion. Next years
budget is only a few hundred billion and it could die in 93 but if
it doesn't we will be seeing billions spent on it.

>>First explain to me why it costs $10 billion and ten years to do what
>>McDonnell and Martin say can be done for $500 million and four years.

>quite simple: we need to spend this kind of money to pork barrel votes
>and keep the aerospace business in spare change, exactly like we've
>done for the military for the past 40 years.

In that case, nothing has changed so we shouldn't waste the money.

>Now, tell me why you think McDonnell and Martin can do it on the cheap,
>other than your stock answer of "they told me so".

My stock answer has never been 'they told me so'. My stock answer is that
'they are willing to sign a fixed price contract'. That means if it
actually costs a billion they eat the difference. Unlike the NLDP
contractors, McDonnell and Martin are willing to put their money
where their mouths are. This doesn't make it a sure thing but it
sure makes it look like they have it thought out. Other aspects
like the fact that 90% of the parts exist today just give me more
confidence. What's wrong with that?

Besides, since either one costs less than a single Shuttle flight
to dvelop, what do we have to lose?

>If they think they
>have such a great gold mine, why don't they start digging with their
>own money? Answer quite simple: they think they can get more from a
>pork barrel congress?

Wrong answer. They aren't developing it because the market isn't there.
One option they gave the government was to just gurantee the market.
One of the above contractors said they wold pay development themselves
if Congress would just buy a set number of flights for a set price.

>>First, admit they have a problem. Their request for new orbiters every year

>Yeah right! that would go over as big as Bush admitting that he actually
>knew every single detail on the Iran-Contra scandal, or as big as an
>opponent admitting he's afraid of getting in the ring with Mike Tyson.

Again, in that case nothing has changed. How can you expect problems
to be solved when they won't admit there are problems?

>>Why is NASA the only agency who can build things?

>they're the only ones willing to spend money to start a program?

Again, wrong answer. Pegasus, AMROCK, SSI, Commercial Atlas...
(others left as an exercise for you; can you name others?).

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #539
*******************