Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_5/V13_584.ZIP/V13_584

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 11KB

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/ocFnOAW00WBwQ4Nk5e>;
          Sat,  1 Jun 91 01:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  1 Jun 91 01:54:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #584

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 584

Today's Topics:
       Re: Powersat R&D (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516)
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
            Re: Shuttle=>Space piggyback?
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
                 HLLV Lives?

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: 17 May 91 18:22:36 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Powersat R&D (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Burns) writes:
[lots of good stuff deleted]
>

I agree with nearly everything you said.

>> Mining the asteroids for materials to_be_used_in_space makes sense over
>> the long term. There is no hurry in the next twenty to fifty years,
>> however.
>
>Speaking for space, what we have to sell is sunlight and volume*vacuum.
>If we don't have customers for those, we don't have customers.
>
[more good stuff deleted]
>
>How many times have we told friends, "If you're serious about sustainable
>growth, you must become a serious supporter of space industry." It is
>fairly scary to hear the informed space community saying, "No hurry
>for twenty to fifty years."
>
>I don't want to misrepresent you on that, Gary. I know you were replying
>to [e-mail], who said:
>
>  >If NASA, a gov agency, could get guys on the moon, in ten years, with
>  >National Prestige/Fear the motivation, think what PI could do, with
>  >Big $$ as the motivation.  Especially with the experince we have now.
>
>to the effect that the $$ could not be promised. I'm in the awkward
>position of having to mark up powersat value against questionable
>costs such as greenhouse, large isotope inventories, and/or agrarian
>poverty.
>
>But I am certain that powersat demand can be anticipated in the 20-50
>year timeframe, as the _first_ benefit of major space industrialization.

My main objection is that I don't think we *can* be ready to utilize
space based materials for such an ambitious program in a shorter timeframe
without a crash program that would likely bankrupt us and/or our decendants.
The effort is so large and so complex and so expensive (initially) that it
has to be approached one small step at a time.

There seem to be two camps here, one wants to take daring leaps depending
on risky assumptions that breakthrus and major discoveries will occur on
schedule, while another camp wants to plod along with piecewise refinement
of techniques and incorporating breakthrus only if they occur and if they fit
into the plan's timetable. I'm mostly in the latter camp. The main downside
risk faced by us plodders is that we may not reach your goal before the
divertable resources here on Earth become too small to do the project.
The main downside risk from the other side is that breakthrus won't happen
on schedule, or at all, and they will fail spectactularly in the near
term and kill any chance of an orderly methodical plan being implemented.

Gary

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

Date: 18 May 91 00:28:08 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED



Your comparison with roads, airports etc is only partially appropriate.
Freedom is a facility for PURE research, primarily life sceince
and technology development.    Private enterprise will never
fund it.

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

Date: 18 May 91 04:19:10 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle=>Space piggyback?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (thaddeus k blayda) writes:
>>There is no aircraft on Earth that could carry a fueled shuttle stack...
>
>Is it possible, however to carry the SRB's and Tank together?

No.  A (single!) SRB or a full External Tank is already far beyond any
currently feasible aircraft capacity.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 May 91 18:11:36 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>If the two exerpted lines above aren't the biggest load of sh*t I've seen
>>in months, I don't know what is.

>>We have more asteroid chunks on earth than we know what to do with...
>> we'veanalyzed hundreds and hundreds of them over the years,

>Talk about a load of sh*t.

>The funding for asteroid sample analysis has been less than
>1/10 of 1% -- one-one-thousanth -- of what NASA has spent on
>the Shuttle and, if it were not for the hard work of intelligent

It is completely irrelevant how the budget for asteroid sample analysis
com[ares to that of the shuttle...this is a case where absolute figures
are more important than relative figures.  From what you said above, I
would assume the funding for sample analysis is in the tens of millions
of dollars.  Exactly how much does it cost to shove bits-o-asteroid into
a mass spectrometer?


>explorers like James Van Allen and lobbyists like Jim Bowery, would
>waste on Fred.  Due to the lack of care and attention on these
>issues by so-called space supporters like yourself, we remain woefully
>ignorant about basic questions regarding these resources.

Oooo...gotta get that little personal slur in there, don't we?  I don't
support your pet projects, so I am a 'so-called' space supporter, instead
of a *real* space supporter?

I've seen reams of analysis on asteroid fragments found here on earth...what
we need to do now is start on some on-site analysis of asteroid material,
with core sampling and such.  Only so much you can learn here on earth from
bits and pieces.

>We have a tremendous amount still to be learned about these fragments.
>I notice you missed my list of outstanding problems of interest to
>future space development, so here they are again -- now this time
>sit down and _think_ about them, OK?  Here are three biggies (there
>are many others as well):

Actually, I thought about them the first time around.  The point of my
posting was that if we are reduced to euphemizing rock-hunting expeditions
to Antarctica as 'manned sample-return missions', then there is something
wrong.  Personally, it sounds to me as if someone knows that it isn't
terribly important, and wants to dress it up...

>* The supply and distribtion of water in earth-crossing objects.

Sounds good to me.  Are you going to find any water or hydrates in
asteroids that made it through the atmosphere?  Probably not...sounds
like an excellent project for a series of small probes.

>* The frequency of, origin of, and earth-crossing asteroid(s) source
>  of urelite diamonds.

Again, a good project.  Last I heard, there was some debate as to whether
these diamonds were formed with the asteroids or were formed in the heat
and pressure of impact with earth...sounds like an excellent project for
a series of small probes.

>* The existence of nickel-iron regolith.

Yet another good idea.  We know there is nickel-iron up there, but it is
difficult to tell whether or not it is surface material or core material
of asteroids...sounds like an excellent project for [drum roll, please]
a series of small probes.

>A greatly expanded study of samples, and collection of new samples,
>along with the other suggested missions you deleted -- visual survey
>and infrared telescope probes -- can greatly illuminate or resolve
>these problems.

I had no problem with the other things you mentioned, so I didn't discuss
them.  I am perfectly in favor (despite my objections to wasting Galileo
on the idea) of learning all we can about asteroids...but sitting on our
collective can, picking at samples in Antarctica, and making ourselves feel
good by calling it a 'manned sample-return mission' is not the way to go
about it.  As for expanding our ground-based observations, that, too, is
a good idea, but if you want to actually learn hard facts (as opposed to
lots of theories) you are going to have to get out there where the asteroids
are and study them.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 14:01:50 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: HLLV Lives?


I recently spoke with someone in the know on this NASA budget thing.
He says the general feeling at NASA is that space station Freedom is
dead, and what's more, Marshall Space Flight Center is reprogramming
to dump the station and go ahead with a heavy lift launch vehicle.
Can anybody out there from Marshall confirm this?

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same
 distance from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures
 where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water,
 there is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
 -- J. Danforth Quayle, 18 November, 1989

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #584
*******************