Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO078.ZIP/V16NO078

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 05:00:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #078
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 26 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 078

Today's Topics:
          2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they? (2 msgs)
                           Freedom's orbit
                        JPL Anonymous FTP Site
                           launches in may?
               Next unmanned missions to Venus (2 msgs)
                  Next  unmanned missions to Venus *
          Sabatier reactor? (was Re: Oxygen in Biosphere 2)
                          Sabatier Reactors.
                     Scientists' Deaths (2 msgs)
                            Shuttle tiles
                      Solar Sail/Parachute/Brake
                         solar sails (2 msgs)
            So what's happened to Henry Spencer? (2 msgs)
                        Space Digest V16 #074
             Space Sta.Freedom pics/gifs/sketches info?+
                         SSF & Mir & Energia
                   What happened to Henry Spencer?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "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: 25 Jan 1993 17:09:01 GMT
From: "Peter J. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> On the other hand, remember that Forbidden Planet, in the 1950's,
> began with the narrator's voice saying, "In the last decade of the
> 21st Century, Mankind reached the Moon."  Rober Heinlein was a bit
> more optimistic in "The Man Who Sold the Moon," placing the event
> in 1979 but, of course, no one believed *that*.

Just watched the circa 1940 movie of Wells' "Shape of Things to Come,"
and they depicted the first moon-shot in *2036*.  I don't remember
what it said in the book, but the movie makers were certainly at
liberty to use their own date if they wanted.

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:18:43 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 25 Jan 1993 17:09:01 GMT, [e-mail] (Peter J. Scott) said:
PJS> NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.jpl.nasa.gov

PJS> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> On the other hand, remember that Forbidden Planet, in the 1950's,
> began with the narrator's voice saying, "In the last decade of the
> 21st Century, Mankind reached the Moon."  Rober Heinlein was a bit
> more optimistic in "The Man Who Sold the Moon," placing the event
> in 1979 but, of course, no one believed *that*.

PJS> Just watched the circa 1940 movie of Wells' "Shape of Things to Come,"
PJS> and they depicted the first moon-shot in *2036*.  I don't remember
PJS> what it said in the book, but the movie makers were certainly at
PJS> liberty to use their own date if they wanted.

Hmm, it's been a while since I saw this one, but wasn't there
a war that knocked most of the planet into anarchy?  I thought
that was why it took so long.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
[e-mail]                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 19:10:22 GMT
From: Chris Blask <seachg!chrisb>
Subject: Freedom's orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>And Alan thinks you'll see a Soyuz sitting on top of a U.S. booster launched
>>>from a U.S. facility....
>>Oh, that's a given. The booster may be the Shuttle but we will see Soyuz
>>being launched for (at the very least) ACRV on US launchers.
>And the booster to lift ACRV may not be shuttle, for that matter. Lockheed has
>made a proposal to use Proton <sp?> to deliver them to Freedom.

'scuse me if this has been covered, but Buzz Aldrin apparently has been
advocating using the Energia boosters (larger and cheaper than enything we
have, yes?) to boost US payloads, and possibly putting Freedom into Mir's
orbit to take advantage of both Mir and the leftover Russian lifting
capability (OMNI Jan '93).  I'm sure western aerospace companies are
clutching at their chests over that idea, as if they didn't have enough
problems in the slash-and-burn budget environment, but then again, who
cares?  I mean, life's rough, and a track record of public funding isn't a
guarantee of future funding.

I'm sure there are lots of great arguments why it isn't that simple, but
still, if it comes to having or not having a platform (which is really
where we are now) we need to have the damn thing.  Combining the two
services seems like a brilliant idea to me, with the shuttle and our
high-tech experience and know-how and the Russian workhorse lifters, Mir
(for what it's worth) and their experience with 'just do it' engineering,
we could be in business within my lifetime.  Current scheduling doesn't
seem to have a chance in hell of actually _getting_ the thing up there any
time soon.

Flame the hell out of me if I'm just being niave.

-chris blask

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:35:14 -0500
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL Anonymous FTP Site
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

All very nice, but I have a calendar with most of the same stuff. Also,
whatever happened to the :) on Mars?

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 08:20:26 EST
From: richard attenborough <[e-mail]>
Subject: launches in may?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi folks,
I am heading to Florida in MAY and am wondering if there are any scheduled
launches in that timeframe.
My appologies if this message is not appropriate for this message area.



 * KingQWK 1.05 * Life is best understood BACKWARDS but only runs FORWARDS.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:02:22 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Next unmanned missions to Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff)

-Hmmm, well, I guess if we were to make any kind of serious exploration of
-Venus's  surface we would have to develop electronics componants that
-operate comforably at 900f.

A sterling engine (running off of a VERY hot RTG, so as to get
reasonable efficiency when the exhaust is coming out at greater
than 700 K) used to run a refrigerator that cools equipment inside
a dewar flask to workable temperatures appears doable.

It has few moving parts, and no one cares if it springs a leak and
vents its' cfcs into the atmosphere.

-Kevin

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:13:36 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Next unmanned missions to Venus

-From: [e-mail] (John Roberts)
-Subject: Re: Next unmanned missions to Venus
-Date: 25 Jan 93 03:35:22 GMT

--From: [e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff)
--Subject: Re: Next  unmanned missions to Venus *
--Date: 24 Jan 93 06:39:04 GMT
--Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

--Hmmm, well, I guess if we were to make any kind of serious exploration of
--Venus's  surface we would have to develop electronics componants that
--operate comforably at 900f. And metals that can protect the inards of the
--probe from terrential sulfuric acid down-poors..
--How WOULD we do that by the way? Anyone know??

-Read the October 1992 Scientific American. If they pan out, diamond film
-semiconductors should be able to operate at up to 700 C (as compared to
-than silicon semiconductors.

Change that last paragraph to read:
"Read the October 1992 Scientific American. If they pan out, diamond film
semiconductors should be able to operate at up to 700 C (as compared to ~450 C
at the surface of Venus), and should be smaller than and operate 40-100 times
as fast as silicon semiconductors."

Other measures that I've proposed in previous years:
 # Nuclear reactor (or RTG, as recently proposed by Kevin Plaxco), driving
   a heat engine, which powers a refrigerator.

 # Tethered balloon, with temperature differential between the ground and
   the balloon driving a heat engine. This has the advantage of not needing
   an imported energy source. I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but
   I *think* the temperature differential is great enough that you might
   be able to get useful power from a tether on the order of 10 km high.
   The high density of the atmosphere would be useful, if the tether is of
   fairly low density. Wind speeds are reported to be very low near the
   surface, and very high in the upper atmosphere. I don't have a velocity
   profile that could be used to calculate wind speeds 10-30 km up.

   What to fill the balloon with to make it buoyant is an interesting
   question. If the fabric is non-flammable, oxygen extracted from the CO2
   atmosphere is a possibility. (The fabric would have to be totally resistant
   to further oxidation.) If the heat flow is great enough, it might be
   used to lift a hot-CO2 balloon.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:09 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Next  unmanned missions to Venus *
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff) writes...
>Hmmm, well, I guess if we were to make any kind of serious exploration of
>Venus's  surface we would have to develop electronics componants that
>operate comforably at 900f. And metals that can protect the inards of the
>probe from terrential sulfuric acid down-poors..
>How WOULD we do that by the way? Anyone know??

The Soviets have been particularly prolific in sending probes to Venus.
They have successfully landed 8 spacecraft on the surface of Venus, with
each spacecraft lasted at least 53 minutes before succumbing to the
heat and pressure of the Venusian environment.  Venera 13 holds the record
of 127 minutes on the surface.  The Soviets have also
sent two balloons to Venus in 1985 that survived nearly two days in
the upper atmosphere of the planet.  The U.S. have never sent a true lander
to Venus, but two of the Pioneer Venus probes, which impacted on Venus in 1978,
actually survived the impact and continued to trasmit from the surface.  Below
is a table of how long each spacecraft lasted on the surface of Venus.

   1975    Venera 9              53 minutes
   1975    Venera 10             65 minutes
   1978    Pioneer Venus probe   2 seconds
   1978    Pioneer Venus probe   67.5 minutes
   1978    Venera 11             95 minutes
   1978    Venera 12             110 minutes
   1982    Venera 13             127 minutes
   1982    Venera 14             57 minutes
   1985    Vega 1                56 minutes
   1985    Vega 2                57 minutes
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Every once in a while,
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | try pushing your luck.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:51:04 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier reactor? (was Re: Oxygen in Biosphere 2)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Michaelson) writes:
|Does CH4 have any role inside a space station apart from making it
|smell farty?
|
|     refrigerant gas?
|     cooking :-) yes... I know it makes C02...
|
|Failing which would venting to space or using as supplement to position holding
|rocketry be worth the effort?
|

Well, There was a plan to use it for stationkeeping but the SSF management
wienered out.  SOmebody told them because it hadn't been done it
couldn't be done.

I imagine,  heating would be somewhat difficult.

pat

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:25:17 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I wonder if people like this are just trying to provoke me? The last I heard
>was that SSF was going to use LOX/H2 thrusters for orbit maintainance.
>Am I wrong? If so, then they are MORE risky than hydrazine.

Freedom will use hydrazine. The original plan was to use hydrogen/oxygen
rockets, with long-term fuel storage made possible by storing water
and electralisizing (sp?) it as needed. Unfortunately, the available
power was less than expected, so hydrozine will be used instead.

>Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
>over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.  Also the new SpaceHab will
>be flying on STS-57 in April.  These are dependent on Shuttle for
>utilities, but are doing the most important SSF precursor work, which is
>the experiments for microgravity.

If the initial microgravity experiments on Freedom were a failure,
they could be redesigned and replaced. If the station can not provide
power, life support, utilities, etc..., the station will be a failure.
Therefore, the mission critical parts of Freedom haven't been flown or
tested.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:59:00
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scientists' Deaths

Several years ago (don't ask me how many) there were *several* postings,
including excerpts from British newspapers, about the spate of "suicides" and
"accidental deaths" of British space scientists in comp.risks.  If anybody is
really interested in doing the research, instead of just sarcastically
dismissing them as crackpot conspiracy fodder, they can look it up in the
Risks archive.

Rick Kitchen
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:30:27 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scientists' deaths

-From: [e-mail]
-Subject: Scientists' Deaths
-Date: 25 Jan 93 19:27:17 GMT

-Several years ago (don't ask me how many) there were *several* postings,
-including excerpts from British newspapers, about the spate of "suicides" and
-"accidental deaths" of British space scientists in comp.risks.  If anybody is
-really interested in doing the research, instead of just sarcastically
-dismissing them as crackpot conspiracy fodder, they can look it up in the
-Risks archive.

-Rick Kitchen

Is there any reason to think it *isn't* just the same sort of thing that
happened to Wall Street brokers in 1929? :-(

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 07:09:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle tiles
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
> -From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
> -Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
> -Date: 11 Jan 93 15:48:12 GMT
>
> -Shuttle designers... chose to use refractory silicates in the form of
> -tiles. These are very poor conductors of heat, you can place your bare
> -hand against one side of the tile while playing an oxy-acetylene torch
> -on the other and not notice a temperature rise.
>
> I think perhaps you mean a propane torch, or butane torch like Mary described.
> Pulling some numbers from the Rogers report and elsewhere, the leading
> edges of the Shuttle wings have to withstand heating up to 2750 F, and are
> made of layers of graphite cloth in a carbon matrix, with the outer layers
> chemically converted to silicon carbide. The upper fuselage, the coolest
> portion during reentry, is only heated to about 600 F. The Shuttle has
> high-temperature and low-temperature ceramic tiles, which are described in
> this report as being "nearly pure glass" (I had thought they were silica),

Not sure what the difference is,  silica/sand/glass,. Same different thing isn't
it?.


> with nearly 90% of the volume being "air". The low-temperature ceramic tiles
> are are rated to 1200 F, and the high-temperature tiles to a higher value,
> but something below wing leading-edge temperatures.
>
> While such temperature resistance is admirable, a properly-designed
> acetylene torch can heat a thermally isolated object to 6000 F (~ 3300 C).

That's great, not all  acetylene torches rate much lesss run up to 6000F.  I've
used one myself with the tile in my hand just for kicks.

> I wouldn't expect any trouble melting most ceramics - I've accidentally
> melted fire bricks that I was using as a backstop for acetylene welding.
>
>>From the 1961 CRC handbook, here are some temperature ratings for ceramics
> and other materials:
>
>   SAFE CONTINUOUS OPERATING TEMPERATURE / MELTING POINT
>      Material          C         F      /    C        F
>      --------        ----      ----        ----     ----
>      Porcelain       1195      2185     /  ....     ....
>      Alumina (84%)   1400      2550     /  ....     ....
>      Zircon          1455      2650     /  2500     4530
>      Silicon carbide 1510      2750     /  2295     4160 (volatilizes)
>      Silica          1620      2950     /  1670     3038
>      Alumina (96%)   1700      3100     /  ....     ....
>      Alumina (100%)  1950      3540     /  2050     3720
>      Zirconia        2316      4200     /  2680     4850
>      Magnesia        ....      ....     /  2800     5072
>      Titanium boride ....      ....     /  2900     5250
>      Thoria           ...      ....     /  3110     5630
>      Titanium carbide ...      ....     /  3125     5660
>      Tantalum nitride ...      ....     /  3440     6050
>      Tungsten         ...      ....     /  3370     6100
>      Zirconium carbide ..      ....     /  3520     6370
>      Graphite         ...      ....     /  3800     6870
>      Tantalum carbide ...      ....     /  3850     7025
>      Hafnium carbide  ...      ....     /  4160     7520
>
> John Roberts
> [e-mail]


lets not be more specific, let's allow some linguistic (not always the same as
scientific) lattitude.

Paul S. Shanley

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 15:50:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Solar Sail/Parachute/Brake
Newsgroups: sci.space

A Solar Sail if I understand right when it arrives at its Steller destination
it becomes a Solar Parachute/Brake. Am I right?


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:53:44 GMT
From: "Earl A. Hubbell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: solar sails
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:


>-From: [e-mail] (Marcus Lindroos INF)
>-Subject: Re: Solar sails
>-Date: 23 Jan 93 08:39:41 GMT
>-Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland

>-There was another proposal as well. A small space probe suspended behind a
>-giant solar sail (2km across, total mass of one hundred kg(?)) would reach
>-Alpha Centauri in 250 years if we make a close flyby of the Sun - one solar
>-radius from the surface (0.7 million km). Is there a way to manufacture an
>-ultra-light sail able to withstand the temperature (4000-5000K at least)?

>Do you have access to the math behind that proposal? It should be impressive -
>for instance, the sail has to withstand something around 50 MW/m^2.
>(The inverse-square law wouldn't exactly apply as far as photon thrust is
>concerned at that distance, but it should be less than a factor of two off.)

Look in _The Starship Handbook_ by Mallove & (forgotten name).  It is fairly
low on math itself, but has references listed in the back.  You might also
check in _The Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets_ or _The Journal of Propulsion
and Power_ under solar sails.

As I recall, the sail survives because the approach to the sun uses
some shielding body until perihelion, then the sail is deployed, and
heats up from there.  The optimal sail design has a highly reflective
solar surface (minimizing heat transfer to the sail), and an efficient
radiator for the outer surface.  Since the spaceward side of the sail
is pointed at the background heat sink, and the inner surface is
reflective, the actual temperature of the sail is kept to below failure
levels (varying with assumed materials and failure modes).

>John Roberts
>[e-mail]
--
"Have you never wanted to look beyond the clouds and *[e-mail]
the stars?  Or to know what causes the trees to bud, *Earl Hubbell
or what changes a darkness into light?  But if you   *Opinions solely mine.
talk like that, people call you crazy." --Frankenstein

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 19:03:06 GMT
From: Marcus Lindroos INF <[e-mail]>
Subject: solar sails
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
>
> >-From: [e-mail] (Marcus Lindroos INF)
> >-Subject: Re: Solar sails
> >-Date: 23 Jan 93 08:39:41 GMT
> >-Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
>
> >-There was another proposal as well. A small space probe suspended behind a
> >-giant solar sail (2km across, total mass of one hundred kg(?)) would reach
> >-Alpha Centauri in 250 years if we make a close flyby of the Sun - one solar
> >-radius from the surface (0.7 million km). Is there a way to manufacture an
> >-ultra-light sail able to withstand the temperature (4000-5000K at least)?
>
> >Do you have access to the math behind that proposal? It should be impressive -
> >for instance, the sail has to withstand something around 50 MW/m^2.
> >(The inverse-square law wouldn't exactly apply as far as photon thrust is
> >concerned at that distance, but it should be less than a factor of two off.)
>
> Look in _The Starship Handbook_ by Mallove & (forgotten name).  It is fairly
> low on math itself, but has references listed in the back.  You might also
> check in _The Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets_ or _The Journal of Propulsion
> and Power_ under solar sails.
>
> As I recall, the sail survives because the approach to the sun uses
> some shielding body until perihelion, then the sail is deployed, and
> heats up from there.  The optimal sail design has a highly reflective
> solar surface (minimizing heat transfer to the sail), and an efficient
> radiator for the outer surface.  Since the spaceward side of the sail
> is pointed at the background heat sink, and the inner surface is
> reflective, the actual temperature of the sail is kept to below failure
> levels (varying with assumed materials and failure modes).

...the size of the sail would be two kilometers across. The total mass is just
60kg, presumably including a small interstellar probe.

> >John Roberts
> >[e-mail]
> --

MARCU$

> "Have you never wanted to look beyond the clouds and *[e-mail]
> the stars?  Or to know what causes the trees to bud, *Earl Hubbell
> or what changes a darkness into light?  But if you   *Opinions solely mine.
> talk like that, people call you crazy." --Frankenstein

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:29:35 GMT
From: "Hugh D.R. Evans (ESA/ESTEC/WMA Netherlands" <[e-mail]>
Subject: So what's happened to Henry Spencer?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
|>Does anyone know why Henry Spencer has not posted recently?
|>His were consistently the most interesting, informative
|>and terse posts. What a shame if the intemperate remark by
|>that Harvard snotnose drove him away...
|>
|>

Perhaps he is on vacation - with Elvis?

Hugh Evans    -    [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 15:41:14 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: So what's happened to Henry Spencer?
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:20:41 GMT, [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) said:

R> Does anyone know why Henry Spencer has not posted recently?
R> His were consistently the most interesting, informative
R> and terse posts. What a shame if the intemperate remark by
R> that Harvard snotnose drove him away...

Henry was at a space conference in Berkeley early last week.  He came
to Dryden on Friday and went to San Diego on Saturday for USENIX.  He
should return to the net the end of the week.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: 24 Jan 1993 10:36:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "JEFF GUIDE - SYSTEM MANAGER, MAC & TI SIGS" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Digest V16 #074

Ron Baalke Said....... Galileo Laser Test Successful

>>> "This experiment is part of a program to show that future
    deep space missions can use laser beams to send back to Earth
    larger volumes of space-acquired data than is currently possible
    using radio signals," ....Remainder deleted...  <<<

Is it possible to transmit video and audio transmissions as well from a
future crew exploring the solar system or beyond?

If a laser was placed in orbit (say space station Freedom) would the
distances the laser could be sent be higher than a laser sent from Earth?

Has anyone quesstimated the maxium distance a laser could be sent?

Could this application be an improvement of transmissions sent by Man or
machine from, say, Mars or the Moon?

Could it also be assumed, that the use of lasers (and fiber optics) for data
transmissions might be used by advanced civilizations on other worlds and
thus the chances of our finding them with the SETI program makes it even
less likely that we'll hear anything?

    Thanks,
    Jeff Guide
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 15:55:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Sta.Freedom pics/gifs/sketches info?+
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.d,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes:
> Greetings. In search of: Space Station Freedom maps/schematics as jpegs,
> gifs, tiffs, ascii line sketches/drawings; preferably with areas labeled.
> No technical details needed - just simple geometric shapes for educ.purposes;
> also general dimensions of modules/parts & whole.  FTP info specially
> welcome.  Simple lists of modules also welcome. Thanks in advance.
> If replying, e-mail to:    (internet) [e-mail]
>                              (bitnet) [e-mail]



Might check out FTP ames.archive.nasa.gov I think is the site..
Not sure what directory..

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 00:43:20 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF & Mir & Energia

-From: [e-mail] (Chris Blask)
-Subject: Re: Freedom's orbit
-Date: 25 Jan 93 19:10:22 GMT
-Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

-'scuse me if this has been covered, but Buzz Aldrin apparently has been
-advocating using the Energia boosters (larger and cheaper than enything we
-have, yes?) to boost US payloads, and possibly putting Freedom into Mir's
-orbit to take advantage of both Mir and the leftover Russian lifting
-capability (OMNI Jan '93).

-I'm sure there are lots of great arguments why it isn't that simple, but
-still, if it comes to having or not having a platform (which is really
-where we are now) we need to have the damn thing.  Combining the two
-services seems like a brilliant idea to me, with the shuttle and our
-high-tech experience and know-how and the Russian workhorse lifters, Mir
-(for what it's worth) and their experience with 'just do it' engineering,
-we could be in business within my lifetime.  Current scheduling doesn't
-seem to have a chance in hell of actually _getting_ the thing up there any
-time soon.

I can't find the official numbers at the moment, but I believe assembly
in orbit is scheduled to start sometime around 1997 - I hope your lifespan
extends that long.

Mir would serve very nicely as a "construction shack" in the early stages
of SSF assembly, and the new station could then be maneuvered to a lower
inclination orbit using an ion engine if desired. Russia has a lot of
experience boosting payloads into orbit, but very little experience with
Energia (it's only flown twice). The main problem with choosing these options
at this point is that if they are to be used, the decision should have been
made several years ago. This close to scheduled launch of the first
components, the redesign required could very easily *increase* the time to
assembly, which was your principal objection to the status quo.

Cooperation between the US and Russian space programs is still a good idea.
Adapting Soyuz as an SSF emergency return vehicle (ACRV) appears to be the
most favored ACRV option at this point.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:50 GMT
From: Karl Dishaw <[e-mail]>
Subject: What happened to Henry Spencer?

I ran into Henry at the Making Orbit con.  He's on a long trip through
the US, which I guess keeps him away from the net.  So he was alive and
unconnected to SDI a week ago....    ;-)


Karl
sold my soul to Uncle Sam . . . now marked down for resale.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 078
------------------------------