Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_2/v13_262.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

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/gbr7uq200WBw46Y05k>;
          Tue, 12 Mar 91 02:09:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 91 02:09:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #262

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
        Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound
            Re: cause of shuttle disaster
               Re: space shuttle design
     SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - 11 MARCH (INFO UPDATE)
            Re: cause of shuttle disaster
           New World Profits (was Re: Space Profits
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
            Re: Japanese Space Effort, II
              looking for a NASA report

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: 11 Mar 91 22:41:57 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Nick's problem here is that he doesn't know much about launcher design,
>or he wouldn't make ridiculous statements like "already strained to its
>technical limits".

I certainly know a lot more than you've told us about.  If you look
at the statistics of jet airplanes vs. rockets, for example fuel per pound
of payload, structural mass per pound of fuel, maximum speed, etc., you
will find that chemical rockets are stretched farther to the limits than
airplanes.  The cost of building jet airplanes has flattened out, and I
expect the cost of building chemical rockets has or soon will do likewise,
at similar per vehicle levels for freight ELV's, and much higher levels for
reusable passenger vehicles.

If you have any facts to refute this, please present them, but let's
not go around knocking people for lacking knowledge you yourself seem
to lack.  I hope that is the extent of this little ad hominem volley :-(


>Launcher designers commonly trade off performance for
>reliability, ease of handling, use of existing hardware, etc.; you would
>not find such tradeoffs in systems that were stretched to their limits.

All transportation systems have these tradeoffs, including those that have
reached their economic limits.  Performance, reliability, and ease of
handling are prerequisite characteristics for even being considered
"transportation".


>As a case in point, almost every launcher designer uses 3 or even 4 stages
>to get to orbit, when Atlas did it with 1.5 over thirty years ago.  There
>are large margins of performance available if environmental constraints
>become serious enough to justify major redesign.

It doesn't seem that Atlas has significantly reduced launch costs.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?"  -- RAH

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

Date: 10 Mar 91 03:09:01 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Ed Meyer)
Subject: Re: cause of shuttle disaster

> [e-mail] writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Posted: 10 Mar 91 15:12:18 GMT
>
> Org.  : Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, NS
> Person: Greg Roberts
>
> I have watched this thread of discussion about two 'high level' engineers
>  [...]
> I would like to see the 'evidence' cooked up by these two. Did they appear at
> the Rogers Commission to testify? Do they have any materials testing reports,
> independent photographic analysis, fatigue analysis or the like to support
> their claim? Enquiring, although seriously skeptical minds, want to know.

Greg, the late (and great) Richard Feynman had some significant observations
and conclusions on this topic.  He pointed to the O-rings, etc.  And, at the
end of his report (which was shuffled to an appendix at the back of the overall
report, I believe), Richard Feynman concluded, "For a successful technology
reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be
fooled."

        Ed Meyer

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 18:24:17 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space shuttle design

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>... Lubkin describes the findings of William McInnis,
>a "high-level engineer at Marshall", and Ali AbuTaha, who did a separate
>investigation of the disaster...
>Any comments?

McInnis I'm not familiar with, but AbuTaha is basically a crank.  He came
up with a steady series of offbeat theories about the Challenger failure,
some of which NASA took seriously enough to check (results negative).

There is really no need to invoke new failure mechanisms and sinister
coverups.  The Rogers Commission's account of the mechanism of the disaster
stands up quite well, is amply confirmed by the camera films and data, and
pointed to real and verifiable weaknesses in the design.  By far the
simplest explanation is that it happened exactly the way they said it did.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date:    Mon, 11 Mar 91 01:30:41 MST
From: [e-mail] (CARY OLER)
Subject: SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - 11 MARCH (INFO UPDATE)
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                        SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN

                              11 March, 1991

                    Updated Solar Activity Information
             Potential Geomagnetic Storm Warning Cancellation

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


UPDATED SOLAR ACTIVITY INFORMATION

     The Potential Geomagnetic Storm Warning for middle latitude regions has
ended as of 11 March.  Geomagnetic activity has been at quiet to unsettled
levels now since approximately 07:00 UT on 10 March.  Conditions are expected
to remain generally quiet to unsettled over middle latitudes.  High latitudes
could experience brief periods of minor storming, although it appears that even
high latitudes will remain generally unsettled to active with little (if any)
magnetic storming.  The activity which occurred over the past 48 hours has been
attributed to the major flaring which occurred on 07 March.  A well placed
coronal hole is also believed responsible for contributing somewhat to the
activity.

     Solar flare activity over the past 24 hours has been relatively dormant.
No M-class flares have been noted today.  The most powerful flare was a class
C7.4/SF from Region 6538.

     Spot activity is quite a different story.  Region 6538 has continued to be
impressively active with regards to spot activity.  This region has bloomed
with spot activity.  The inner area of this region is fairly dense with spots.
Region 6538, now located at S23E20, has continued to increase in size and
complexity.  A magnetic delta configuration has now appeared together with the
beta-gamma configuration.  Spot count has increased to 109 in this region
today.  It covers a large 27 degree angular extent.

     Region 6537 (S08E01) has also increased in size and magnetic complexity
over the past 24 hours.  This region now encompasses 28 spots and has been
reclassified as a magnetic beta-gamma configuration.  This region was
responsible for spawning an X-class flare earlier this week.

     Region 6538 is now well place for providing high terrestrial impacts
should a significant major flare erupt.  Within the next 48 to 72 hours, this
region will also be capable of producing potentially strong proton and PCA
activity if a major proton flare occurs.  It is somewhat unusual that this
region is as inactive as it has been over the past 24 hours.  This may be a
sign of stabilization, but considering the amount of spot activity occurring
in the region and the continuing magnetic complexity, significant major flaring
is still very possible from this region.  Isolated major M and/or X-class
flares continue to be a threat.

     HF propagation conditions have returned to normal over most low and middle
latitudes.  Significant high-latitude improvements have also occurred over the
past 24 hours.  Increased signal stability and decreased absorption are
expected over the next several days.  A strong possibility exists for
SID-induced SWF's.  However, any SWF's should be relatively short but could be
of moderate to high intensity (particularly if a major flare occurs).

     VHF propagation conditions could be quite good on the lower bands.  MUF's
have increased recently and may now support possibly widespread openings on 6
meters, particularly over the shorter distances (under approx. 3000 km [1900
miles]).  Frequencies near 50 MHz are more likely to support potential DX.  The
most favorable times for potential DX exist when the sun is at its highest
elevation in the sky at the midpoint of the signal path.  For north-south
paths, this optimal time occurs near local noon.

     Auroral activity has diminished significantly over the past 24 hours and
is now not visible over the middle latitudes.  No further activity is expected
over the next 24 hours.  Whether activity increases after 48 to 72 hours is
heavily dependent on whether any major flaring occurs.


**  End of Bulletin  **

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 21:15:15 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: cause of shuttle disaster

For the record, Feynmann also thought that besides the problem with
the solids that was fixed he thought there were other problems, such
as with the SSME's. He talked about this in _What Do You Care What
Other People Think?_ Even without that, it's worth a read.

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
Tuva or bust!

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

Date: 12 Mar 91 01:09:45 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mtdoom![e-mail]  (Dan Tilque)
Subject: New World Profits (was Re: Space Profits

[e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>
>>>Gold and silver in large amounts did
>>>not start flowing from America for nearly 50 years.
>
> "W> Exactly. No profit making enterprise would ever have funded the
> "W> colonization of the new world. Payoff time was just too long.
> "W> Under your system where every step must make buisness sense the
> "W> new world would never have been colonized.
>
>But every mission to the "New World" was funded with profit in mind.  I think
>that we need to differentiate between "colonization" and "settlements".  The
>first Spanish settlements were not self-sustaining communities, for the most
>part the men left their families in Spain.  They came over with the express
>purpose of making as much money as possible (by exploiting and/or
>conquering the natives) and then going home. Later, the
>colonies were started, with farmers, families, etc.  Most of these, by the
>way, were started for religous purposes or, similiar to Australia, as
>prison colonies.

Everything you say is true but could use more elaboration.

Columbus' first voyage was approved for one main reason: beat the
Portuguese to the Spice Islands.  If the Portuguese had not been making
money in the African gold and slave trade, they probably would not have
been exploring very far down the African coast and seeking the way to
the Indies.  Thus, the Portuguese exploration was paying for itself.

This competition continued for later expeditions.  Columbus' third
voyage was approved because, at the time, the Portuguese were
outfitting Vasco de Gama's expedition and the Spanish didn't know where
it was to be sent (it could have gone to the New World).

If Columbus had not brought back a few gold nuggets and some relatively
worthless plants which he thought were valuable spices, Spanish
exploration in the New World would probably have progressed at a much
slower rate or even halted altogether.  However, Columbus knew
this and kept exploring until he had at least something valuable to
show for his trip.

Many of the early expeditions cost the government nothing.  A common
method of financing was through private means with the government
merely giving an official blessing and sometimes the rights to rule any
islands discovered.  Even so, taxes on profits were typically about
20%.

The first people sent as permanent settlers were from Spanish prisons.
However, this wasn't to set up a prison colony.  It was thought that
there was no incentive for anyone to voluntarily move to the New World,
so they forced the prisoners to go.  Up to that point, no one even
tried to grow crops in the New World.  Most explorers lived on
provisions brought from Europe or as a last resort, Indian food.
Because of this, they soon started to send a provision fleet to the New
World every year.  However, even these were expected to come back with
valuables (gold, pearls and slaves).

---
Dan Tilque    --    [e-mail]

A favorite trick of Ephebian gods, he recalled, was turning into some
animal in order to gain the favours of highly placed Ephebian women.  And
one of them had reputedly turned himself into a golden shower in persuit
of his intended.            -- Terry Pratchett, _Pyramids_

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 01:54:32 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>Maybe it is more
>subtle than I thought.  I was saying that for the most part, it is only
>the government that has the need and the money to fund the development
>                            ----         -----
>of the first useful product from advanced research, especially if that
>product is the first of its kind.

If understand your point, it is that government money is needed, not
necessarily government lab work.  The patent statistics and analysis
of major inventions show that industry does indeed develop first
products, sometimes with some government money, sometimes not, but nearly
always without government intervention in the design process.  More basic
scientific advances are usually the products of university and commercial
research labs, often with government funding but again with little
intervention in the technical specifications.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?"  -- RAH

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 01:40:10 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Japanese Space Effort, II

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:

> BY> If this is the same station mentioned in a recent IEEE Spectrum
> BY> article on Japanese robotics, they really do mean *autonomous*
> BY> -- as in robotic and non-teleoperated...
>
>They're working on both.  There are plans for a manned station.

Here we go again.  By "plan" do you mean somebody mentioned "I
wish we had a manned space station" to a reporter once?

I am sure somebody somewhere in Japan also has "plans" for FTLT
travel and time machines.  Sheesh...




--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?"  -- RAH

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

Date: 11 Mar 91 17:51:36 GMT
From: haven!cs.wvu.wvnet.edu![e-mail]  (James D Mooney)
Subject: looking for a NASA report

(I am posting this query for my 10th grade daughter):

I've been referred to a study identifying the economic benefits of NASA
technology Spinoffs for a research project I am conducting on these
benefits.  I understand that the NASA Scientific and Technical Information
Facility in Baltimore has copies of this study, and I wrote to them several
weeks ago.  I have gotten no response.  I need a copy of this study as soon
as possible, and any shortcuts you may know of in getting a hold of one
would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

                    Tara Mooney

--
Jim Mooney                Dept. of Stat. & Computer Science
[phone]                West Virginia University
                    Morgantown, WV 26506
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #262
*******************