home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 05:01:26
- From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
- Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
- Subject: Space Digest V15 #104
- To: Space Digest Readers
- Precedence: bulk
-
-
- Space Digest Thu, 13 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 104
-
- Today's Topics:
- beanstalk in Nevada (2 msgs)
- Beanstalks, Tethers - something I forgot to mention
- Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers) (2 msgs)
- Home made rockets
- Location of the Sun
- More second-hand info on TSS
- Parsecs? (3 msgs)
- Solar System Journal
- SPS fouling astronomy
- Star Trek (anti-)realism
- What is the ASRM?? (2 msgs)
-
- Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
- "space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 92 20:53:50 GMT
- From: Hans Moravec <moravec@Think.COM>
- Subject: beanstalk in Nevada
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- In article <STILES.92Aug12133223@quik.clearpoint.com>, stiles@quik.clearpoint.com writes:
- |> Wouldn't it be possible to have a beanstalk terminus in Nevada just as long as
- |> you had a complimentary terminus an equal distance south of the equator, to
- |> form a dual stalk beanstalk? As I envision this thing, there would be a single
- |> upper terminus, located directly above the equator, and the lines descending
- |> from it would have a catenary shape. Of course, it would be difficult enough
- |> doing a beanstalk to a terminus on the equator, but as long as we are dreaming
- |> ...
-
- It shouldn't be necessary to balance a non-equatorial synchronous beanstalk
- with one on the other side of the equator. Imagine that you start by
- building an equatorial version, anchored by a big weight (and pulled
- taut by a counterweight way out beyond synchronous orbit). Then load the
- anchoring weight on some kind of transport and move it (slowly!) to Nevada.
- The beanstalk won't fall, it will just begin to LEAN equatorward, following
- gradient lines that can be imagined as vector sums of gravity pulling
- to earth center, and centrifugal force pulling perpendicular to earth's
- rotation axis (rather than center). Something like a catenary.
-
- -- Hans Moravec
-
- He who refuses to do arithmetic should carry a calculator
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 92 22:36:46 GMT
- From: Hans Moravec <moravec@Think.COM>
- Subject: beanstalk in Nevada
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- In article <16btouINNqhh@early-bird.think.com>, moravec@Think.COM (Hans Moravec) writes:
- |> In article <STILES.92Aug12133223@quik.clearpoint.com>, stiles@quik.clearpoint.com writes:
- |> |> Wouldn't it be possible to have a beanstalk terminus in Nevada just as
-
- I wrote:
- |> It shouldn't be necessary to balance a non-equatorial synchronous beanstalk
- |> The beanstalk won't fall, it will just begin to LEAN equatorward, following
- |> gradient lines that can be imagined as vector sums of gravity pulling
- |> to earth center, and centrifugal force pulling perpendicular to earth's
- |> rotation axis (rather than center). Something like a catenary.
-
- Oops, I neglected the forces in the cable. A curved cable in tension
- creates a force at right angles to the cable direction: that's the
- main issue in a catenary. So the direction analysis is more complicated
- than I suggested. But the general shape suggested was right.
-
- -- Hans Moravec
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 92 22:28:14 GMT
- From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Subject: Beanstalks, Tethers - something I forgot to mention
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- Another possibility I forgot to mention along with space fountains was
- a variant of a launch loop. You have, oh say six platforms above the
- Earth, moving such that they stay above the same point - but lower than
- GEO. This normally can't happen, but if you have a huge "loop" around
- the Earth, of pellets, each of which sort of strikes each platform and
- bounces(??) in such a way as to maintain its altitude, and continue on to
- the next platform. It's been awhile, so I don't remembert this in detail
- At some point, the pellets are boosted, to keep up their speed. If anyone
- wants a better description, I could look up the info. (I really should
- know this, though.)
-
- "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: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 92 22:14:02 GMT
- From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
-
- >In article <63811@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
- >> Would it be possible to put something in near orbit over Nevada and
- >> attach tethers to it so that people could reach the object via
- >> elevators? I know it wouldn't be easy, but is there a way to pull
- >> this off?
-
- >Hmm. Interesting question. To first order: No, it's impossible, for two
- >reasons.
-
- >Let's examine your question again.
-
- >> Would it be possible to put something in near orbit over Nevada and
- >> attach tethers to it
-
- >You could hang over Nevada in a non-Keplerian orbit, that is, if you
- >were willing to thrust continuously. You can hire a helicopter pilot
- >to do this until her fuel runs low.
-
- >Bob Forward has proposed using high-performance solar sails to put
- >payloads into such orbits. I think there's a pop discussion of this
- >in his book *Future Magic*, and more technical stuff in various AIAA
- >papers. There's no obstacle in principle to this that I know of, but
- >the technology required (really light, really large, highly reflective
- >sails) is at least a couple of decades away.
-
- >If the altitude were low enough, the strength requirements on your
- >tether would go down, and it might really be buildable (given
- >staggering technology).
-
- One thing you forgot, Bill: Space fountains. Accelerate ferromagnetic(?)
- "hula hoops" electromagnetically, aiming them nearly straight up. Then
- decelerate them electromagnetically, transferring both momentum and
- electricity to the decelerator. This is itself a huge ring, sort of.
- Imagine a hollowed out cylinder, with two much smaller cylinders cut
- out of the remaining material, opposite each other. The hoops go up thru
- one side, where they are decelerated, giving an upward momentum boost to
- the huge cylinder, and with the power generated from this, they are
- accelerated downward on the other side (when they reached the top of the
- fountain, they were turned back down towards Earth), thus balancing the
- momentum transfer on both sides of the cylinder. STack a bunch of these,
- and voila! a space fountain. This was also studied by Forward, along with
- many others. As far as I can remember, it doesn't require any material
- advances. And the neat thing is, by working it properly, you can have
- a geosynchronous satellite above just about any point on Earth, up to any
- height. The power requirements are very large, of course (I don't remember
- exactly), but within reason. You can then also ride this up to space in
- a variety of fashions.
-
- "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
- though checkered with failures, than to rank with those poor spirits who
- neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that
- knows not victory nor defeat."
- - Theodore Roosevelt
- --
- "To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
- Tom Nugent e-mail: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:18:42 GMT
- From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
-
- >Clarke also had his tower made of that famous variety of unobtainium,
- >monomolecular filament. Assuming he'd done some basic estimates, you
- >have to figure that's the kind of tensile strength you need for a cable
- >23,000 miles long. He also had a captured asteroid stuck out on the
- >far end as a counter-weight, possibly at a height beyond GEO.
- ^^^^^^^^
- Most definitely beyond GEO - the Center of mass needs to be at GEO for
- the whole thing to stay above one spot. i.e.,therefore,ergo: the cable
- must go (pretty far) beyong GEO.
-
- "[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: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:16:54 GMT
- From: "Charles J. Divine" <xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov>
- Subject: Home made rockets
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- In article <1992Aug10.201804.15953@hal.com> bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton) writes:
- >From article <BsMIC9.29z@zoo.toronto.edu>, by henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer):
- >> In article <1992Aug6.182520.18534@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
- >>>> I have recently got into the field of making home-made rockets ...
- >>>
- >>>What you describe doing is amazingly dangerous. If you persist in it, I
- >>>hope you do get caught and arrested, as you are a public menace, if
- >>>you're still alive to read this post!
- >>
- >> What I posted the last time this came up:
- >
- >> In article <1175@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
- >>>If you're not a pro, DON'T try it. It just isn't as simple as it
- >>>looks.
- >>
- >> I'd revise that slightly: if you're not a pro, don't try it unless you
- >> are prepared to turn yourself into at least a semi-pro first.
- >
- >Sheesh! I hardly ever read this list any more. So I decide to read it
- >while waiting for a build and find something I wrote 2.5 years agoing
- >being quoted. Never underestimate the memory of the net.
- >
- >There is one other danger to consider. Even if you become a pro or
- >semi-pro, you may inspire non-pros to blow their hands off.
- >
- >During my teenage basement bomber phases (an amazing number of bright
- >kids go through this phase, I think of it as evolution in action) I
- >used carefully prepared propellants and wound paper tubes. My
- >failures burned and made loud *pops*. Some other kids in the
- >neighborhood "copied" me. They were not nearly as careful as I was.
- >One kid lost most of a hand and part of his face.
- >
- >There are many levels of danger to building home made rockets.
-
- While I commend your advice to learn what you're doing before
- engaging in building rockets, I can't endorse your warning to not
- try lest you inspire the less qualified to imitate.
-
- Fools have been inventing ways to harm and kill themselves for
- some time now. By your reasoning I should give up skiing, because
- while I'm good, others aren't and I just might inspire that 16
- year old beginner to try Superstar at Killington and put
- themselves into the local hospital with multiple fractures.
- Similarly others should give up all other dangerous activities.
- And, for that matter, let's outlaw rockets in general. They
- can be dangerous in the wrong hands -- and the best professionals
- will inspire the less qualified to try their hand.
-
- I recommend _educating_ the public about the dangers of
- rocketry et al. Getting them involved _responsibly_ if they
- want to get involved. Isn't there an American Model Rocketry
- association that does just that?
-
-
- --
- Chuck Divine
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 92 21:14:03 GMT
- From: Jim Atkinson <jra@wti.com>
- Subject: Location of the Sun
- Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,comp.graphics,alt.3d
-
- I am looking for an algorithm for the location of the Sun. (I know,
- it's right up there :-)). I am doing some computer graphics simulation
- type work and want to be able to simulate sunlight given a location on
- the surface of the earth and a time/date. If someone has such an
- algorithm on-line that they can send me or a pointer to a book that
- contains one I would really appreaciate the help. Thanks.
- --
- ========================================================================
- Jim Atkinson Wavefront Technologies, Inc.
- jra@wti.com What, me? A company spokesperson? Get real!
- =================== Life is not a spectator sport! =====================
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 1992 19:26:28 GMT
- From: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>
- Subject: More second-hand info on TSS
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- In article <1992Aug12.005707.25791@den.mmc.com>,
- jhull@vulcan.NoSubdomain.NoDomain ( Joseph F. Hull) wrote:
- >
- > If you really think it is that simple, Chuck, why don't you bid for the deployer contract
- > for TSS-2. Until you are willing to put that kind of money where your mouth is, please try
- > to be a little less derogatory.
-
- First of all, my original comment wasn't intended to be derogatory. Perhaps
- a bit too tongue in cheek for some, but not derogatory.
-
- If you'll read the rest of the message, I was putting the recent failure of
- the TSS in context with the failures of other relatively low-tech devices
- that failed, jeapordizing the shuttle's primary mission (e.g., capture bar,
- cooling fans, etc.).
-
- The simple point was that NASA (often through its contractors) seems to
- over-engineer solutions. (and I AM speaking from first-hand experience as a
- former contractor). I place the blame squarely at the feet of NASA
- management for continuing to foster over-engineered, contractor-welfare
- solutions to problems that used to be solved "in-house" in a simple,
- cost-effective fashion. The culture has changed from being one of technical
- excellence to one of low-risk management decisions.
-
- Before I get flamed for painting with too broad a brush, let me say that
- there are several fine examples of engineering coming out of many NASA
- centers. Unfortunately, most don't get the same amount of publicity that
- the failures do.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 92 20:09:19 GMT
- From: "Eric Bowman (bobo" <bowman@reed.edu>
- Subject: Parsecs?
- Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
-
- In article <ZOWIE.92Aug12004854@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
- >This talk of parsecs and so forth reminds me of my favorite volumetric unit:
- >the barn megaparsec.
- >
- >A barn is a unit of atomic cross-section, 10^-20 cm^2. A barn megaparsec is
- >about 1.6 teaspoons!
-
- Actually, a barn megaparsec is 0.626 teaspoons. A barn is 10^-24 cm^2.
-
- I know, I know, nit-picking :^)
-
- bobo
- bowman@reed.edu
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 92 00:48:54
- From: Craig Powderkeg DeForest <zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu>
- Subject: Parsecs?
- Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
-
- bcollins@utdallas.edu (Arlin B. Collins) writes:
- (Brian Kemper) writes:
- > (Richard Martin) writes:
- > > Please forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is a parsec?
- > I know a parsec is a unit of distance equal to roughly 3 light-years ...
- One parsec equals 30.857x10**12 km, 206265 astronomical units, and
- 3.2616 light-years.
-
- This talk of parsecs and so forth reminds me of my favorite volumetric unit:
- the barn megaparsec.
-
- A barn is a unit of atomic cross-section, 10^-20 cm^2. A barn megaparsec is
- about 1.6 teaspoons!
-
- --
- Craig DeForest: zowie@banneker.stanford.edu *or* craig@reed.bitnet
-
- "So, if you guys make a living looking at the SUN, why do you spend so much
- time at the SYNCHROTRON, working UNDERGROUND at NIGHT?"
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:26:59 GMT
- From: archangel <train@wixer.cactus.org>
- Subject: Parsecs?
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- 1992Aug11.211445.6928@csi.on.ca>
- Sender:
- Followup-To:
- Distribution:
- Organization: Real/Time Communications
- Keywords:
-
- In article <1992Aug11.211445.6928@csi.on.ca> richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
-
- writes:
- >Please forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is a parsec?
- >Richard.
-
-
- The definition of a parsec is the distance at which the PARallax of an object
- (star, galaxy, what have you) is one SECond. This distance is about 3.21
- light years if I remember correctly (Don't have any books near me to check
- this). Hope this is helpful.
-
- --
-
- Alton Pouncey train@wixer.cactus.org
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:28:53 GMT
- From: Robert W Murphree <rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
- Subject: Solar System Journal
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- Title: Memoirs of a planet nut, or the solar system as best I remember it.
- Author: Robert W. Murphree
- Description: A sort of Gonzo journalism travelouge of the last 30 years
- of planetary exploration.
- Warning: Probably of no interest if you haven't seen at least 3 different
- planets in photos for at least 3 years.
- Index: These are in order of a) sun to outer solar system b) large to small
- bodies and c) past to present missions.
- Apology to planetary researchers: If I made fun of your planet I'm sorry.
- if I made fun of NASA politics or manned space, tough nooghies
- Warning: probably ALL the NASA color planetary pictures have had their
- colors altered for greater entertainment value.
-
- SUN
-
- memorable pictures: Skylab movies of solar flares/prominances
-
- comments: The perfectly ordinary object has the greatest mystery.
- The deeper you go into it, the deeper the mystery gets.
-
-
- MERCURY
-
- Memorable pictures ++ NASA PR/POLITICAL bottomline:
- conversation of JPL technical person to NASA PR person:
- "Well, at least we tried"
-
- comments: Just enough interesting differences from the moon to hold
- your interest for several hours. Intellectually, not a bad planet.
- Pictorally, a letdown.
-
-
-
- VENUS
-
- Memorable pictures ++ NASA PR/POLITICAL bottomline:
- conversation of NASA PR person to JPL adminstrator:
- " Thank goodness for those pictures making the clouds visible,
- Give the guy who put the Ultraviolet Camera on Mariner 10 a promotion."
-
- comments: the longer I look at those Venera lander pictures, the
- more impressive the science and engineering and human drama of them
- becomes.
-
- Magellan: As far as exploration, this is the real thing. The first
- "New" planet since Neptune. Like Viking, probably it will take 5 years
- just to figure out what the questions we should be asking about the
- surface of Venus are. Then the real science will began. NASA is going to
- shut off the spacecraft a year from now. This is proof that NASA's
- real business is PR and aerospace company patronage, not science.
-
-
- EARTH
-
- memorable pictures: too many to mention, any whole earth picture.
-
- comments: The unknown familiar. The ultimate focus of planetary
- science may be to get perspective on home. Its fragility from space
- stays with you.
-
-
- LUNA
-
- memorable pictures: videos of landings. Any astrophotographers
- whole moon shot. One of my profs and I remarked, "the landings looked
- surealistic, like a movie set" They weren't though.
-
- comments: Finally, I'm getting a little recognition of basic lunar
- landforms. Lava tubes, wrinkle ridges on lava flows, frozen melt lakes,
- this is NOT a TOTALLY alien world. Comment on the regolith, "its really
- like snow, isn't it". Caption to the earthrise picture "wish you were here".
-
-
- METEORITES AND MOON ROCKS
-
- I don't know if I could recognize a rock with chrondrites in it.
- Breccias, yes. Basalts, look, -sigh- , a little like cement..
-
-
-
- MARS
-
- memorable pictures and NASA PR/POLITICAL bottomline:
- My advice to the PR people is your best bet with planetary imagery is
- either a whole planet scene or else something that includes the limb with
- a noticeable curvature. Always make it look like a science fiction
- movie, never use a vertical down shot like it was just geology.
-
- comments: The geological earth analogy angle. I'm not a geolgist,
- but it might be that mars principle value to science it as a "second
- experiment" with Venus as a third. I always remember that Mars has
- enough seperate geologic processes going on to make it seem like an
- earth rerun. Yes, single plate tectonics/no plate movement, so sad.
- Mars is a laboratory to rerun earth's geolgic processes.
-
- water on mars: message to S.F. fans: when are you going to get over
- the "early life on mars" fixation and the colonzation fantasy. Grow up.
-
- Viking: the best press possible. Its the bicentennial on Mars, and
- "You are There". Too bad the geologically meaningful instruments and
- experiments were crowded out by the biolgy experiments. We could have
- gotten the same information and lots more besides.
-
- Phobos and Deimos: So this is what an asteroid looks like. Still, its
- alot like the asteroids in star wars I, or was is star wars II?
-
-
-
-
- Land of the outer solar system, Voyager, of thee I sing
-
-
- JUPITER
-
- Memorable photo experiences: Higher resolution of Jupiter than
- through a telescope, nice but "so what". I guess Caltech's Dr. Ingersoll had
- a good time. I guess you had to be a meteorologist to enjoy it.
- I'm slowly learning enough meteorology to appreciate planets with.
-
- Magnetosphere: this is a BIG planet
-
- CALLISTO
-
- total number of obviously different geologic processes: 2-3
- redeeming PR shots: Valhalla Basin. Good work, crater naming team.
-
-
-
- EUROPA
-
- Proof, to those of you who don't live in the real world, that God's a good
- painter
-
-
- GANYMEDE
-
- After I'd gotten the explanation, obvious signs on large and small scales
- of ice tectonism.
-
- IO
-
- Asimov was right, geologically active bodies were a BIG surprise.
- Wierdest body of the solar system.
-
-
-
-
-
- SATURN
-
- Rings: Best PR shots. But also best example, to the most casual reader,
- of the scienctific method at work: you could watch the earth observation to
- theory to flybye observation to more theory. What will higher resolution
- by Cassinni do to our ring theories? Never could get into rings though.
-
- Titan: Mystery deepens. Our children's robots will have to explore this one.
-
- Other moons: Each one seemed to have just one geologic process or feature
- (besides cratering) going for it. Titan is the last really distinctive moon
- until you reach Triton.
-
-
- URANUS
-
-
- Most boring planet award. NASA PR memo to JPL " thanks for the Miranda
- shots they saved our ****". A planet whose interior model is its most
- interesting point is very, very dull.
-
- Moons other than Miranda: mostly of the Saturnian, one geologic trick
- per planet variety. Yeah, I know the approach geometry didn't give
- very much time for closest approach picture taking.
-
- Rings: yes, Virginia you actually have to go there to find out.
-
-
- NEPTUNE
-
- memorable images: Beautiful blue ball with great cloud movies--
- a relief after the Uranus disapointment.
-
- Triton: at last, another moon surface with CHARACTER.
- NASA PR memo to JPL: well done, we went out with style, couldn't
- have done better if we'd planned it.
-
- Rings: rings are pretty interesting and odd aren't they?
-
- PLUTO
-
- the only unexplored planet in the solar system? who cares? give me
- orbit and landing on comets, asteroids, or mercury any day.
- The eclipes with Charon data and the occultion data were enough for now.
-
-
- COMET HALLEY
-
- despite the disapointing failue of Giotto's camera pointing mechanism
- to capture maximum resolution pictures, a very sucessful first look.
- Not very visually exciting, but the discovery of CHON composition
- dust and other in situ measurements were maybe good science.
-
-
- COMET GRIGG-SJKELLERUP
-
- Despite its being mostly a particles and fields experiment, its lots
- better to have 3 comets with 3 different gas production rates than
- 2. Clever of the ESA to keep Giotto asleep for so long with no
- monitoring. Good look with fuel and budgeting for number 4 comet.
-
-
- GASPARA
-
- first for sure asteroid. Lower resolution pictures: no surprises,
- higher resolution pictures: no surprises. Well I guess they dated
- it didn't they? Hope galileo december data dump delivers deligtful
- delicacies(sorry about that).
-
-
- GALILEO AT JUPITER IN 1995
-
- Probe: The in situ probe of the atmostphere is the best possible
- human participative experiencer for me. Just read me the isotopic,
- elemental, molecular abundances with altitude profile. I'll make a
- poster of it and put it on my wall.
-
- Jovian Moons: Wait and see. NIMS geochemical mapping may be dynamite.
-
- Magnetosphere: Will our knowledge take a big leap?
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:28:06 GMT
- From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
- Subject: SPS fouling astronomy
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- In article <1992Aug12.044959.19501@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
- >...issue of COST is unresolved, however, but come to think of it, is there
- >any reason SPS *must* be a mega-engineering project? Might there be
- >some way of doing it simply?
-
- Unfortunately, if you use microwaves there is a fundamental problem: to
- keep the size of the receiving rectenna manageable, you *must* have a
- transmitting antenna on the order of a kilometer wide, assuming your
- bird is in Clarke orbit. (An order-of-magnitude approximation is that
- the product of the antenna radii must exceed distance times wavelength.)
-
- Laser transmission would scale down better, but runs into the weather
- problem, which microwaves largely avoid.
- --
- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
- mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:14:02 GMT
- From: James Bielak <dbsjwb@Edm.Arco.COM>
- Subject: Star Trek (anti-)realism
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- In article <92224.180315IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, Nicholas C. Hester
- <IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
- |> In article <1992Aug11.004823.5046@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
- |> says:
- |> >
- |> >My favorite in science fiction space travel like Star Trek and Star Wars
- |> is
- |> >the asteroid field. Never mind that even crowded fields they are still
- |> (in
- |> >reality) mostly space.
- |>
- |> Being mostly ignorant about these things, what would an asteroid field
- |> look like if one flew into it? I always assumed that it would be alot
- ^^^^^^^^^^
- |> calmer, w/o the asteroids tumbling like in StarWars.
- |> ___
- |>
- |> Nick Hester "Time time time
- |> ia80024@Maine.bitnet for another peaceful war..."
- |> ia80024@Maine.maine.edu - Warren Zevon
- |> "Roland the Headless Thompson
- |> Gunner"
-
- I'll bet they are alot quieter than the roar you hear when they go past
- in the movies! ;^)
-
- --
- bielak@Arco.COM ARCO Exploration and Production Technology
- james.bielak@Edm.Arco.COM 2300 W. Plano Parkway PRC-D1139A
- (214) 754-6184 Plano, TX 75075
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 12 Aug 92 18:20:58 GMT
- From: Michael Jensen <mjensen@herman.gem.valpo.edu>
- Subject: What is the ASRM??
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- In article <5586@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
- |> >In article <1992Aug4.140921.19282@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> pettengi@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov
- (James B. Pettengill) writes:
- |>
- |> >>the asrm program is dead for now but not for long. it should be resurrected
- |> >>latter this year or next.
- |>
- |> >Don't count on it.
- |>
- |> >>fred can't get off the ground without asrm.
- |>
- |> >Unless they use Energia.
- |>
- |> > Allen
- |>
- |> >--
- |> >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
- |> >| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they |
- |> >| aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" |
- |> >+----------------------262 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
- |>
- |> Or unless they use a Saturn V rocket. Rumors say that NASA is thinking
- |> about "resurrect" the Saturn V to launch fred in fewer flights than
- |> it would take by using the Shuttle.
- |> Of course, rebuilding the launch pads for the Saturn, and getting the
- |> original contractors to build the parts, would not be easier, and one
- |> may say cost-effective.
- |>
- |> Armando
-
-
- If I hear my info correctly, you are partially correct. There is a study
- going on to try and use the new NLS (National Launch System) if it get's built in
- time. The "mothballed" Saturn V vehicles would cost too much to bring back to
- operating condition, hence requiring complete reconstruction of the vehicle. The
- NLS would be much more cost effective, and I beleive this is the direction they plan
- to take.
-
-
- --
- Michael C. Jensen mjensen@gellersen.valpo.edu
- Electrical Engineering jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov
- Valparaiso University mcj0716@exodus.valpo.edu
- "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:05:01 GMT
- From: "neil.a.kirby" <nak@cbnews.cb.att.com>
- Subject: What is the ASRM??
- Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- In article <5586@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
- >>In article <1992Aug4.140921.19282@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> pettengi@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes:
- >
- >>>the asrm program is dead for now but not for long. it should be resurrected
- >>>latter this year or next.
- >
- >>Don't count on it.
- >
- >>>fred can't get off the ground without asrm.
- >
- >>Unless they use Energia.
- >
- >
- >Or unless they use a Saturn V rocket. Rumors say that NASA is thinking
- >about "resurrect" the Saturn V to launch fred in fewer flights than
- >it would take by using the Shuttle.
- >Of course, rebuilding the launch pads for the Saturn, and getting the
- >original contractors to build the parts, would not be easier, and one
- >may say cost-effective.
- >
- >Armando
-
- Two major factors here (IMHO). One: can NASA do the new one the way they
- did the old one? That is to say can NASA develop a totally new booster in
- a cost effective way. Totally new because S V production capability has
- been gone for a very long time. Everybody knows the desired outcome: a
- Saturn V clone. Getting there will take work. The test stands are still
- there at Stennis. The launch pads would need reconversion back. The VAB
- is there. But where is Rocketdyne? Or all of the other contractors and
- their skilled and experienced personell?
-
- Two: Does Congress has the will to spend that kind of money? Not an easy
- task to get new space money through the hill.
-
- Neil
-
- PS: Thanks for all of the corrections to my last posting [crew
- sepereation]. Teach me to post while tired.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 104
- ------------------------------
-