Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_0/V15NO008.ZIP/V15NO008

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 32KB | 776 lines

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 05:01:50
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #008
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 17 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 008

Today's Topics:
                   ACRV study contract terminated.
                  Another vote on DCX - help needed.
                              apollo 10
     First image of sun in neutrons [Release 92-113] (Forwarded)
                         FTL drives (3 msgs)
                 Interplanetary communications relays
            Need Testers for MS Windows Astronomy Program
                    Propulsion questions (5 msgs)
                            Shuttle tires
                        Solar Power Satellites
Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates) (3 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]" (on Internet).  If you are on Bitnet,
    you must use a gateway (e.g., "space%isu.isunet.edu@CUNYVM").
    Please do **NOT** send (un)subscription requests to that
    address!  Instead, send the message "Subscribe Space <your name>"
    to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), RICE::BOYLE
    (SPAN/NSInet), UTADNX::UTSPAN::RICE::BOYLE (THENET), or
    [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 92 17:08:01 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: ACRV study contract terminated.
Newsgroups: sci.space

I just heard today that NASA is terminating the Phase B study contracts
for the ACRV.  One contract is held by LMSC, the other(s) I am not sure
of.  I guess that the Soyuz deal may be farther along than anyone
thought.

--
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| [e-mail]    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
|   **** Papoon for President! You Know He's Not Insane!! ****

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 20:35:23 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another vote on DCX - help needed.
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

The following memo was written by Tim Kyger of Rep. Rohrabacker's (R-CA)
office. They have been taking the lead in keeping SSRT alive. Another
important vote is coming up and help is needed.

  Allen

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

Memorandum

To: DC-X Proponents
From: Tim Kyger
Subject: DC-X -- What Should Now Be Done

Thursday, July 16th, 1992

1. The House Appropriations Committee ("HAC") and its Defense
Subcommittee Chair, Representative John Murtha, will take the position
in conference with the Senate on the FY '93 Defense Appropriations Bill
(H.R. 5504) that SSRT funding should be restored (said conference
occurring probably sometime in early September).  Nevertheless, the
prejudicial language terminating SSRT contained in the HAC's Committee
Report H. Rpt. 102-627 has passed into the outside world, and the same
arguments against SSRT as are presented and justified in H. Rpt. 102-627
are butrussed by their presence in that report.

2. We must assure that there is as much positive support from Congress
for SSRT as is possible before the HAC/SAC ("Senate Appropriations
Committee") conference on the Defense Appropriations Bill.  This will
help to neutralize the language of H. Rpt. 102-627.

3. Favorable SSRT language should therefore, if possible, be a part of the
SASC's Committee Report on their FY '93 Defense Authorization Bill
("Senate Armed Services Committee" -- "SASC").

4. The order will be SASC first, SAC second.  SASC will mark up this
coming week, but SAC and its Defense Subcommittee will not be marking
up until sometime in August.  Furthermore, friends of SSRT/SSTO are
members of the SAC; they will no doubt be willing to help in the days
ahead to convince their colleagues to include favorable SSRT language in
their Committee Report from the start (yet another means to help
neutralize the caustic effects of the House Report's SSRT language").  In
other words, we have time to work the SAC to prepare them to be
favorable in conference with Mr. Murtha.

5. The SASC's Subcommittee on Defense Industry and Technology
("SASC DI&T"), chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman of NM, will meet on
Monday, July 20th at 2pm to mark-up their bill.  This means report
language on SSRT should be a part of that mark-up.  This also means,
frankly, that Mr. Bingaman must be "gotten to" in the next two days or
so.

6. Letters, phone calls, faxes, etc., should be made to Senator Bingaman's
office asking that the SSRT DC-X ATD program be supported in the
SASC's Committee Report.  The more and varied the positive contacts
supporting SSRT that Senator Bingaman receives, the better.

7. Following are the names, addresses, phone and fax numbers of the
Senators on the SASC DI&T Subcommittee; you could also be
calling/faxing/writing them:

Senator Jeff Bingaman (Chair of SASC/DI&T) (D-NM)
SH-524
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-3102
202/224-5521
Fax: [phone]

Senator Al Gore (D-TN)
SR-393
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4202
202/224-4944
Fax: [phone]

Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO)
SR-380
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-5852
202/224-5852
Fax: [phone]

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)
SH-311
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4801
202/224-3954
Fax: [phone]

Senator Dan Coats (R-IN)
SR-407
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-1403
202/224-5623
Fax: [phone]

Senator Connie Mack (R-FL)
SH-517
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-0904
202/224-5274
Fax: [phone]

Senator Bob Smith (R-NH)
SD-322
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
202/224-2841
Fax: [phone]


 [it is most effective if you call the Senator's office and ask to speak
   with the staffer responsible for defense issues. Tell them about the
   program and ask the Senator to support it. Also, I will post results
   when I get them.  -Allen]
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------281 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 16 Jul 92 16:50:13 GMT
From: Charles Frank Radley <[e-mail]>
Subject: apollo 10
Newsgroups: sci.space

Objects in low lunar orbit tend to "decay" because of "Mascons"
or Mass Concentrations, which locally increase the gravitational
field, and disturb the satellite's orbit.
   The Moon cannot be treated as a point object for this reason,
so simple elliptical orbital equations do not apply to objects
orbiting the Moon.
   Nobody seems certain of the origin of "Mascons", they might
be massive buried meteorites.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 20:06:39 GMT
From: Roland Karlsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: First image of sun in neutrons [Release 92-113] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

How was it made?  I surely want some description of the method.


--
Roland Karlsson             SICS, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Internet: [e-mail]    Tel: [phone]          Fax: [phone]
Telex: 812 6154 7011 SICS   Ttx: 2401-812 6154 7011=SICS

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 18:01:05 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL drives
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Derek Wee) writes:


>  Just out of interest, I'm compiling a list of the FTL drives used in
>science  fiction stories and computer games. I have already got:

[stuff deleted]

>  The method used in `Lensman' series also baffles me, having something to
>do
>with the element iron.

I can't remember exactly, but in the 'Lensman' series, didn't they supposedly
"nullify" inertia, so that any object automatically assumed a speed at
which all forces on it balanced out?  So out in space, with a relatively
small push, you go so fast that you have drag from interstellar gas keeping
you from moving at "infinite" speed.


"I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such
a compelling nature that to miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an
epoch.  Space is such a challenge."
        - James A. Michener
--
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent        e-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Jul 92 17:55:04 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL drives
Newsgroups: sci.space

I never saw the original request, so am unsure if you have this...In Vonda
McIntyre's _superluminal_, they traveled along hyperdimensional axes (the
higher the dimension, the farther you went).  This travel was incompatible
with rhythms and pilots had to replace their hearts with mechanical, non-
beating pumps.

Also, in another McIntyre book, the ship uses a solar sail to get to a
magnetic cosmic string, grabs the string with magnetic claws, rotates around
it to end up elsewhere in the galaxy.

--
  Shari L Brooks                   |   [e-mail]
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   [e-mail]
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.

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

Date: 16 Jul 92 21:03:13 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL drives
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Derek Wee) writes... >
>Just out of interest, I'm compiling a list of the FTL drives used in
>science  fiction stories and computer games. I have already got: >

In "Cascade Point," By Timothy Zahn (is that the right name?) the spacecraft
uses a "Colloton drive" to enter a space which is a bilinear conformal mapping
of normal space. (Circles map to lines, lines to circles.)  You rotate the ship
through a specified angle, and when you turn off the drive you are light years
from your starting point. Of course, you had better not still be rotating as you
turn off the drive and leave Colloton space, or your ship will be spread out
over millions of miles!

For reasons not entirely explained, while in Colloton space you also see
multiple images of yourself, in a cross-like pattern with yourself in the
center, where each image is a possible reality differing incrementally from
all the others.  You get to see what you might have been if only you had
accepted that job, or married that girl, etc.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 16:58:36 GMT
From: "Don M. Gibson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interplanetary communications relays
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>True, but I would like to belabor the obvious for just a while longer.
>A relay at Jupiter orbit for a Saturn mission would still require a

this assumes that jupiter and saturn are in conjunction.  if they aren't,
then it is *real* dumb to put a relay satellite around jupiter for
a saturn mission.

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

Date: 16 Jul 92 21:31:24 GMT
From: Tom Chapin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Testers for MS Windows Astronomy Program
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu,comp.ibm.pc.misc

[e-mail] (Eric Bergman-Terrell) writes:
:*** Beta Testers Needed for Windows 3.X Astronomy Program ***
:
:Testers will send feedback via e-mail to [e-mail].
:
:Eric Bergman-Terrell
:[e-mail]

Strange....my mail was returned "User unknown"...


--
         tom chapin                [e-mail]
          (effective Aug 1, 1992:  [e-mail])

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

Date: 
P
From: Rob Douglas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 15:46:32 GMT
Lines: 29
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

We were sitting around discussing this and not getting any where, so I decided
to ask the experts.

1) If a space ship used a fusion reactor for propulsion, how would that work?
Doesn't there have to be something sent out the back of the ship, so
that the ship has to conserve momentum and move forward?  If so, then the
amount of forward acceleration is limited by the weight carried by the ship
at the start, and there is no way to have a very long term propulsion source.

2) Does this problem also work for matter-antimatter propulsion systems?  Do
you need a significant mass of both to destroy in order to propel the ship
forward?

3) How does a solar sail work, then?  Are there any existing models of a solar
sail which have been shown to work?

4) I am not sure, but the only method of propulsion I can see is by using
conservation of momentum since there is nothing to push against.  Is this
incorrect?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Rob Douglas          | [phone]    | Computer Science Department     ~
~ [e-mail]  | AI Research Group | Worcester Polytechnic Institute ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 __
             /_/ _   /     /\  _       _,  / _   _
            / \ (_) /_)   /_/ (_) /_/ (_) / (_\ _\
                                     (_)

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 17:45:35 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Douglas) writes:
>1) If a space ship used a fusion reactor for propulsion, how would that work?
>Doesn't there have to be something sent out the back of the ship, so
>that the ship has to conserve momentum and move forward?

Barring some more esoteric possibilities, yes.  The point of using something
like fusion is that it lets you expel that mass at higher velocity, which
means you need less of it.

The obvious way to build a fusion rocket is to build your fusion reactor
with a small leak in it, with a nozzle on the other side of the leak.
The thrust will be low but exhaust velocity will be very high.

>...[then] forward acceleration is limited by the weight carried by the ship
>at the start, and there is no way to have a very long term propulsion source.

This is phrased a bit confusingly, but I assume you mean "when it runs out
of fuel, it stops generating thrust", which is true.  This is true of *any*
rocket.  The question, really, is not how long the thrust lasts, but whether
it gives you the velocity you want.

You *can* try to build a Bussard ramjet, which scoops up the interstellar
gas to use as fusion fuel.  Trouble is, that gas is awfully thin, and it's
hard to scoop up enough to be useful.  Worse, it's almost entirely ordinary
hydrogen, and it's extremely difficult to build a fusion reactor that will
burn that stuff at any useful rate.

>2) Does this problem also work for matter-antimatter propulsion systems? ...

Same situation.  Rockets are limited by the capacity of their tanks.
Antimatter is energetic enough that this is not a big deal, mind you;
limits on antimatter production are likely to be more significant.

You can also build an antimatter-powered Bussard ramjet, which scoops
interstellar gas for reaction mass but is powered by antimatter.  You're
still limited by the size of your antimatter tank, but it's better than
an antimatter rocket and doesn't have the fusion-reactor problem.  The
design of the scoop is still problematic.

>3) How does a solar sail work, then?  Are there any existing models of a
>solar sail which have been shown to work?

Light has momentum.  When it bounces off a reflector, it exerts a force
on it.  A damn small force.  You need a huge surface area to get useful
thrust, but at least you're not burning fuel to do it.  Solar sails are
the slow freight rather than the passenger express, but they should work
well in the inner solar system.

Nobody has flown a solar sail with useful thrust, but there is no doubt
that the principle works.  Light pressure is a significant issue for
satellite attitude control, and has in fact been harnessed for attitude
control at least once (Mariner 10).

>4) I am not sure, but the only method of propulsion I can see is by using
>conservation of momentum since there is nothing to push against.  Is this
>incorrect?

So far as we know, conservation of momentum is non-negotiable.  If you want
to go in one direction, *something* has to go in the opposite direction.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be something you haul with you, if you're
clever enough to find something else -- space is not completely empty.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 18:42:39 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Rob Douglas) writes:

>We were sitting around discussing this and not getting any where, so I decided
>to ask the experts.

Well, I don't know if I'm an expert, but this is an area of strong interest,
and I did give a well-received talk on these topics last week.

>1) If a space ship used a fusion reactor for propulsion, how would that work?
>Doesn't there have to be something sent out the back of the ship, so
>that the ship has to conserve momentum and move forward?  If so, then the
>amount of forward acceleration is limited by the weight carried by the ship
>at the start, and there is no way to have a very long term propulsion source.

Just like in regular rockets, you need a nozzle to provide thrust to the
rocket from the exhaust.  What happens (or will happen) in a fusion rocket is
as follows:  you cause (by whatever means) fusile material to fuse; this
releases alot of energy; you add (or already have sitting there) some
propellant which picks up energy from the fusion reaction; then you deflect
the expanding plasma (it's energetic enough to cause all your propellant
to become a plasma) with an electromagnetic nozzle; and thru the nozzle,
force is imparted to the ship.  An electromagnetic nozzle is basically a
superconducting ring (or rings) with a _large_ current flowing in it.
Due to some conductive properties of plasma, it magnetic field formed by
the superconducting ring 'deflects' the plast, imparting force to the ring
which is attached to the ship.  Neat, huh?

>2) Does this problem also work for matter-antimatter propulsion systems?  Do
>you need a significant mass of both to destroy in order to propel the ship
>forward?

Yes.  Actually, the original idea for antimatter rockets was to use light
itself as exhaust, using electron-positron annihilation to produce gamma-rays.
Only problem is, gamma-rays have this annoying tendency to penetrate most
matter, and not reflect from it very well (which is what you want - to reflect
the light out the back).

Later, they thought about using proton-antiproton annihilation.  p-pbar
creates alot of pions, mostly charged, along with some gamma rays.  Now
you are alot like a fusion rocket - add stuff to give yourself more thrust,
deflect it all with a EM nozzle, and voila!  The pions don't decay (into
gamma rays, I think) until they've moved downstream 10's of meters, by
which time they are of no use to you.

>3) How does a solar sail work, then?  Are there any existing models of a solar
>sail which have been shown to work?

Solar sails work by reflecting sunlight.  Einstein showed that light has
momentum.  If you reflect light, by conservation of momentum, whatever
reflected it has picked up momentum.  Solar sails can move both towards
and away from the sun, by slowing themselves down or speeding up (which
you do by deflecting the light in a certain direction).

As for existing models, some solar sails have been built.  A couple (of
increasing size) have been built by the World Space Foundation (I think)
to be used in the race to the Moon at the end of this year (or sometime
next year).  Japan and Europe are also competing in this.  Also, back
in the 60's the idea was actually proved (unintentionally I suspect) by
some weather satellite/balloon which was in orbit but had some aluminized
mylar balloon about 30 ft across.  Can't remember what it was called,
but supposedly light pressure affected the perigee of its orbit by some
500 km!

>4) I am not sure, but the only method of propulsion I can see is by using
>conservation of momentum since there is nothing to push against.  Is this
>incorrect?
No, this is for the most part correct.  I'm not sure if gravity
assists count as cons. of momentum, or if cons. of energy is also the
prime driver (although energy is always conserved - supposedly).


"[The space program] can help counter the head-on collision with the
environmental chaos we now face; spearhead technological, competitive, and
political leadership; stimulate young minds to excellence; and forge cultural
bonds between nations for the benefit of all humanity."
                - Leonard David
--
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent        e-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 18:57:45 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Douglas) writes:
>
>>2) Does this problem also work for matter-antimatter propulsion systems? ...
>
>Same situation.  Rockets are limited by the capacity of their tanks.
>Antimatter is energetic enough that this is not a big deal, mind you;
>limits on antimatter production are likely to be more significant.
>
Robert L. Forward is optimistic about the possibilities.  He has a
single-stage to Mars design based on hydrogen as reaction mass and
anti-hydrogen as energy source.  The actual amount of anti-matter
involved is miniscule by comparison with the amount of reaction mass -
essentially it's a conventional rocket with a very high specific impulse
and an energy source that introduces little or no extra mass.

According to Forward's trend analysis, we're perhaps a couple of decades away
from being able to produce anti-hydrogen in sufficient quantity.  Prices
of millions of dollars per gram sound daunting, but you don't need that
much of it.  Storage of the anti-hydrogen is possible: Forward described
cryogenic techniques already simulated.  There would be some annihilation at
the surface of the anti-hydrogen, but not much.
>
>>3) How does a solar sail work, then?  Are there any existing models of a
>>solar sail which have been shown to work?
>
>Light has momentum.  When it bounces off a reflector, it exerts a force
>on it.  A damn small force.  You need a huge surface area to get useful
>thrust, but at least you're not burning fuel to do it.  Solar sails are
>the slow freight rather than the passenger express, but they should work
>well in the inner solar system.
>
Light bounces, but solar wind doesn't.  You can get thrust from both,
but solar wind thrust is strictly radial.  You can tack against the
light pressure.

--
||))) If you build it                          )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))) They will cancel it   - Field of Dweebs. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 19:30:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Jones) writes:
>>Light has momentum.  When it bounces off a reflector, it exerts a force
>>on it.  A damn small force...
>>
>Light bounces, but solar wind doesn't.  You can get thrust from both,
>but solar wind thrust is strictly radial.  You can tack against the
>light pressure.

Actually, there's a radial component from light too, because you don't
get perfect reflection.  And in fact, at any given sail angle, your
reflection thrust is made up of a tangential component that actually
gets you somewhere and a radial component that essentially reduces the
Sun's gravitational field somewhat.  The tangential component is
maximized at a sail angle of about 37 degrees.

My recollection is that solar-wind thrust is essentially negligible
compared to light thrust.  The only scheme I know of that does anything
useful with the solar wind is Zubrin's magsail, which is a different
kettle of fish entirely.

You can't really tack a solar sail in the normal sense, because solar
gravity doesn't make a very good keel.  What you can do is reduce your
orbital velocity and then wait for the Sun's gravity to reel you in.
You do a lot of waiting in solar sailing, actually...
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 15 Jul 92 13:06:11 GMT
From: Peter Jarvis <phred!petej>
Subject: Shuttle tires
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
>Stupid question: why are the tires inflatables, rather than made of,
>say, a closed-cell foam?

Same as for cars. Pneumatic tires are lighter, more flexible and
therefore easier to start rolling once they hit the runway. I don't
think solid tires would survive the runway impact and come out round.

Peter Jarvis..........

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 18:08:29 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Power Satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:

> to make it worse. Most people will live on Earth for some time to come,
> to have humanity denied the sight of the stars would be tragic.
> ta

Well, if you live anywhere near any half pint city, you are mostly denied
the sight of the stars.  I live in Urbana, with the local population on
the order of 100,000.  You have to go really far out of town to see more
than a dozen stars or so.


"I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such
a compelling nature that to miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an
epoch.  Space is such a challenge."
        - James A. Michener
--
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent        e-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 16:08:23 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>
>    If NASA were willing to look past the Shuttle, it would realize
>that it could redesign the station in 15klb chunks (ugh), develop the
>DC SSTO concept, and fly Freedom in it for less than it'll cost to
>fly it on Shuttle as is.
>    Anyone for shooting the Shuttle program office people
>in the name of progress? 8-)
>
>-george william herbert

Are you NUTS?

Fly Russian! It's developed, it'll cut down on Shuttle flights for assembly,
and help out people who need it.


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA.
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 16 Jul 92 16:08:49 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:

>    If NASA were willing to look past the Shuttle, it would realize
>that it could redesign the station in 15klb chunks (ugh), develop the
>DC SSTO concept, and fly Freedom in it for less than it'll cost to
>fly it on Shuttle as is.

Or consider this idea I have been tossing about inside my head:

1. The Feds form a non-profit company and for five to ten years invest in
   it what they now spend on the Shuttle (about $5B/year).

2. The compnay invests the money in bonds with a target yeild of about 10%.
    (Could be a bit more or less).

3. The compnay uses the interest to buy water (or whatever) delivered to
   a useful orbit. They pay $1,000 per pound first come first served until
   the interest income for that year runs out. (if nobody buys then the money
   is re-invested and the market will be larger next year).

   In the first year they should be able to buy ~500,000 pounds of water and
   an additional 500,000 pounds per year after.

4. Any year where more than 80% of the available funds are spent the offering
   price of water to LEO will drop by 10%.

5. When the price drops to $250/pound or so the effort ramps down with other
   launch service users taking the slack.

6. When the company is no longer buying launch services, the company is
   liquidated and the principle returned to the government.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------281 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 17:29:31 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>>Most of the unmanned people are very thoroughly locked into the mindset
>>of never depending on new technology if they can avoid it.  (As witness
>>Cassini being shrunk to fit on a Titan IV without the new SRBs...
>
>    If NASA were willing to look past the Shuttle, it would realize
>that it could redesign the station in 15klb chunks (ugh), develop the
>DC SSTO concept, and fly Freedom in it for less than it'll cost to
>fly it on Shuttle as is.

Well, the real problem here (as with Cassini) is the attitude that one
cannot depend on such things because they are too risky.  It's a real
issue, but it's been taken too far.  (Depending on the shuttle is risky
too, after all...)  We've reached the point where everyone is so afraid
of taking chances that very little progress is being made.  Some of the
new manned programs being proposed are at least being explicit that they
will accept some degree of risk.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 008
------------------------------