Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_1/V16NO189.ZIP/V16NO189

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 19KB

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 05:03:59
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #189
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 16 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
                     "Late 'L5' Society (4 msgs)
                   kerosene/peroxide SSTO (2 msgs)
Nobody cares about Fred? (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
                 SSTO re-entry - cooling and fuel use

    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: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 20:52:04 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>SSF at the worst is an investment in the future. Saying that SSF will not
>do anything good for mankind is akin to telling the Wright Brothers that
>the aeroplane will not do any good for mankind. For the totally metaphorically
>impaired this means that it is not what we know that station can do that
>counts but what we do not know and will discover. Watch the PBS series
>CONNECTIONS and try to get a grip on what the potential for station is.

Dennis, this can be said about anything. I know a guy who wants $2 billion
per year (same as Freedom gets) to conduct his own research. He wants to
force feed bat guano to NASA engineers and study the effects on their
systems. Now should we fund this research?

Before you answer 'no that would be pointless' just think of the new
drugs which will spinnoff from this project. Saying that the Bat Guano
project will not do anything good for mankind is akin to telling the Wright
Brothers that the aeroplane will not do any good for mankind.

For the totally metaphorically impaired this means that it is not what we
know that feeding bat guano to NASA engineers can do that counts but what
we do not know and will discover. Watch the PBS series CONNECTIONS and try
to get a grip on what the potential for the Bat Guano project is.

Now I think the Bat Guano project is pretty stupid but if we rely only on
the arguements you give above, it makes just as much sense as Freedom.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------120 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 15 Feb 1993 16:54 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>Now I think the Bat Guano project is pretty stupid but if we rely only on
>the arguements you give above, it makes just as much sense as Freedom.
>
>   Allen
>--

Responses like that one are the primary reason that no one listens to you with
any seriousness anymore regarding the postive things that you support. There
are many identifiable advances in materials processing, life sciences and
even from you structural and mechanical engineering knowledge to be gained
by putting SSF into orbit. You reply with some very inane response that has
become your trademark of late.

If only one process or experiment or bit of engineering enables a breakthru
such as room temp superconductors, (This is actually a "possiblityy" due to
the fact that the oxidations state of the material is directly infulenced by
the differing electron configurations in the oxygen atom in the matrix and
the Atomic oxygen environment may provide a new stat that we can exploit to
raise the temp) the program will have paid for its costs. It is interesting that
you deleted the part about incremental progress in related ground studies in
materials processing.

If you care to look around you materials processing on earth is the fastest
growing segment of science today. The complementary studies of materials
in orbit are assured to make, and for that matter are already making,
an impact on the way we do research on earth. These are real concrete reasons
Allen. All we get from you is bat guano.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 15 Feb 93 23:33:43 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Now I think the Bat Guano project is pretty stupid but if we rely only on
>>the arguements you give above, it makes just as much sense as Freedom.

>Responses like that one are the primary reason that no one listens to you with
>any seriousness anymore regarding the postive things that you support. There

Dennis, I am only applying your own arguement to another line of research.
If you don't find the response appropriate, then come up with better
arguements.

   Allen



--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------120 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 16 Feb 93 00:23:34 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon Leech) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>>|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
>>|> Coffman) writes:
>>|> > The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US.
>>|>
>>|> Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The
>>|> National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies
>>|> Institute.  We're still kicking.
>>
>>    Sorry, Dale, but the L-5 Society is as dead as a doornail - if you
>>consider the founding goals of the group important. Furthermore, L-5 merged
>>with Von Braun's National Space Institute, NOT the Space Studies Institute.
>>SSI continues doing privately funded research to support *real* space
>>colonization, rather than lobbying Washington to fund aerospace subsidy
>>projects like Fred.
>>
>>    Jon
>>    __@/

>Hey Jon in case you have not looked the sponsor of the National Space
>Society's 1993 International Space Development Conference is the

>HUNTSVILLE L-5 SOCIETY

>Does this suggest to you that the L-5 is dead? Many of the L-5 chapters are
>the strongest NSS chapters. Many many who are in the know, state that the
>main problem with the NSS is that they do not pay any attention to their
>chapters.

Yah, but would that chapter be one of the aforementioned "strongest
NSS chapters" and organizing said conference without Greg Allison's
efforts? You certianly wouldn't be sponsoring the ISDC conference he's
apparently running this year.

>Now for your stupid comment about SSF. What is the reason for Clinton's
>constructions jobs program? It is to shift funds from SSF (who in a vast
>majority are educated and voted for Bush or Perot) to Construction workers
>(Who have a generally lower education and who voted mostly for Clinton).

People in La. voted overwhelmingly for Clinton and he's probably going
to shut down what's left of the oil industry. It also showed a great deal
of abuse under Bush, who was from the oil industry. In short, I Don't Think
So.

>With this in mind what do you think the reason for the attempted change in
>the budget was? I have not said much about this because we have been saying
>things where it counts. It should not surprise you that Senator Howell Heflin
>of Alabama was one of the main objectors to the rape of SSF.

No, he's got to keep the jobs going to his district... but I have to
ask you: were you up there when he was running against Denton?

>SSF at the worst is an investment in the future. Saying that SSF will not
>do anything good for mankind is akin to telling the Wright Brothers that
>the aeroplane will not do any good for mankind. For the totally metaphorically
>impaired this means that it is not what we know that station can do that
>counts but what we do not know and will discover. Watch the PBS series
>CONNECTIONS and try to get a grip on what the potential for station is.

Actually, saying that SSF will not do anything good is akin to telling
Professor Langley to stop monopolizing the aircraft experimentation
industry. Read about that one and think for a while.

>I agree with all of the detractors that Space processing in the 80's was
>largely a flop. Why? Because the ignorant scientist own experimental
>designs and processes were flawed. Thanks to several years of experiments
>on Sounding Rockets like CONSORT and new Shuttle Spacelab and SpaceHab and
>non Shuttle missions like COMET we are GRADUALLY solving these problems. If

With better access these problems would have been fixed a _lot_ sooner.

>you think it is taking too long, take a look at a new terrestrial technology,
>high temperature superconductors. They have been around since 1987 and still
>there is almost no practical applications of the technology due to the
>engineering problems relating to the new materials. It ain't easy and it
>ain't quick but there will be payoffs. So get offa your lazy duffs and
>support SSF and SSTO.

You mention the high-t superconductors that were developed (in part) by
the materials scientists at UAH during the virtual shutdown of materials
science after the Challenger accident.

Is that an argument for or against improved access to space? ;-)

>SSF will be the lab in the sky we need and SSTO will be the magic wand
>that will greatly lower the costs of space transportation (on the light
>end of the scale).

After we get SSTO, you, or I, or Universal Fabricators out at the Port,
will be able to build a better space station than Fred for amazingly little
money.

>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

BTW, if you're using MSDOS, or Windows, look at the hardware. It was
probably made outside of the United States.
It's pervasiveness is based on leverage using little to no US-manufactured
goods. If you want US manufacturing to stay alive, buy something else.
Like an Amiga. Or an Atari. While you can. It's too goddamn late for
you to stop acting retarded and buy a NeXT.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 20:22:14 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: kerosene/peroxide SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Mitchell
>>Burnside Clapp (whose ideas triggered this discussion) chose that fuel
>>combination not for performance, but for ease of operations.  For routine
>>flying operations, it's a considerable advantage to have fuels that are
>>easy and safe to handle, i.e. fuels that do not need refrigeration and
>>are not highly toxic.  This is where peroxide/kerosene comes from.

>Peroxide, at least in the grades needed for rockets, is still pretty
>touchy stuff. Of course almost all rocket fuel oxidzers are. LOX is
>certainly dangerous to handle. However, peroxide is nearly unique among
>common oxidizers in being unstable enough to self-decompose violently.
>I guess that red fuming nitric acid is about as bad. Over the years we've
>developed pretty good techniques for handling LOX, but we have much less
>experience in handling concentrated peroxide in rockets. It has been used
>successfully in naval torpedos and in a Brit rocket if I recall correctly.
>I certainly wouldn't call it "easy and safe to handle" however. I'd save
>that label for the kerosene.

>Gary
>--
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

Read the article on handling HTP in the Journal of the British Interplanetary
Society 1990 on the British Black Arrow Program. Pure, CLean HTP does not
explode, indeed as the article says the most unsafe thing about htp is
that most of the time it is very forgiving. But of course it is a VERY
powerful oxidant and will react accordingly if given the slightest chance.
The bad reputation for HTP (High Test Peroxide) comes from the German
wartime experience. Their HTP was impure.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 22:03:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: kerosene/peroxide SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Mitchell
>>Burnside Clapp (whose ideas triggered this discussion) chose that fuel
>>combination not for performance, but for ease of operations...
>
>Peroxide, at least in the grades needed for rockets, is still pretty
>touchy stuff...

This is a common superstition in US rocketry circles that does not seem
to be supported by hard evidence.

The British used peroxide very successfully in their rocketry programs
for a long time, including their only orbital launch.  Their experience
was that a lot of the "common knowledge" about high-purity peroxide
simply isn't true.  See the paper in the July 1990 JBIS.

The NF-104 program at Edwards had ordinary USAF technicians handling
peroxide routinely for eight years with no significant problems.
(Mitch is an instructor at the Edwards test-pilot school.)

Peroxide *is* a powerful oxidizer, and like all such, it has to be
handled with some care.  But it's got to be safer than, say, hydrazine
(which has generally similar physical properties, in addition to being
volatile, poisonous by inhalation or skin absorption, and carcinogenic).
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 15 Feb 1993 20:19:41 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred? (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>This still ignores the total lack of integration testing and huge unknowns
>about our ability to assemble things in space. .... Even if the parts
>fit together we don't know if the astronaut is physically capable
>of joining them since we do so little EVA to practice.

Spoken like a true whiner.  It's why, after the last satellite rescue (you
know, the one which you bitched about because it was too expensive and had no
tangible results), NASA started putting in more EVA activities when possible
and reviewing their training techniques down here.

>Those of you who think ending Fred will be an end to manned space, think
>about this. What happens if Fred simply can't be built because of the
>lack of integration testing and poor EVA practice our astronauts receive?

It would probably warm your heart to no end so you could say "I told you so."

>>To characterize this as "covering up" seems absurd; >every< engineering design
>>has many intermediate design problems and issues (including Apollo, and the
>>design of whatever car that you drive); as long as the problems are
>>dealt with (even if it takes some time to do so, due to the complexity
>>of the system being designed), then why should anyone outside of the design

>>organization want to know about these issues?
>
>If that where the case, I would have no problems. The problem is that we
>only seem to see corrective action taken when outside agencies mandate it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Somehow, I don't think NASA announces every design change to the public so Mr.
Sherzer can fulfill his oversight duties as Space Zealot.

Pleaseeeee....

Just get an AK-47, go down to NASA HQ, and start shooting everyone wearing a
tie who might be NASA management.  It's the ONLY way you'll be happy.



                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 15 Feb 93 19:52:06 GMT
From: Craig Meyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO re-entry - cooling and fuel use
Newsgroups: sci.space

I suppose an SSTO would have heat shielding on the bottom.  Whould it me made of
the same ceramic material as the space shuttle tiles?  Does heat shielding
contribute significantly to wieght?  To cost?  To complexity?

Would this be a better way to cool a landing SSTO?
Through the bottom surface and engine nozzles, circulate a fluid (like H, He,
or H2O).  Once the fluid is done cooling the craft, it will be very hot and
under great pressure.  Therefore, shoot it out the back and develop thrust from
it.  Light gases like H and He would develop a good deal of thrust, compared to
H2O, which would be easier to handle and soak up more heat per wieght.
Perhaps a scheme like this would be advantageous in that only a fluid would
have to be replaced, and not heat sheilding.  Also, if a hydrocarbon fuel were
used, would using a different fluid to cool the craft/engines prevent coking
(collection of solid carbon in the tubing)?

Secondly:
What percentage of an SSTO's fuel is expected to be used up in
re-entry/landing?  (I wouldn't think much, since the craft's about empty)

Thanks for your help,
CM

--
       Craig Meyer                 [e-mail]
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 189
------------------------------