Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no104.txt

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 05:01:26
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
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
    "[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: 12 Aug 92 20:53:50 GMT
From: Hans Moravec <[e-mail]>
Subject: beanstalk in Nevada
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: beanstalk in Nevada
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hans Moravec) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 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" <[e-mail]>
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: [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 22:14:02 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:18:42 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Nugent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (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: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:16:54 GMT
From: "Charles J. Divine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Pendelton) writes:
>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Henry Spencer):
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>
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.
[e-mail]        What, me?  A company spokesperson?  Get real!
=================== Life is not a spectator sport! =====================

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

Date: 12 Aug 1992 19:26:28 GMT
From: Chuck Shotton <[e-mail]>
Subject: More second-hand info on TSS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (   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" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 00:48:54
From: Craig Powderkeg DeForest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics

[e-mail] (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:  [e-mail]  *or*  [e-mail]

"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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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                              [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:28:53 GMT
From: Robert W Murphree <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS fouling astronomy
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:14:02 GMT
From: James Bielak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek (anti-)realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Nicholas C. Hester
<[e-mail]> writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (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
|> [e-mail]                 for another peaceful war..."
|> [e-mail]                     - 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! ;^)

--
[e-mail]             ARCO Exploration and Production Technology
[e-mail]   2300 W. Plano Parkway PRC-D1139A
[phone]              Plano, TX 75075

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 18:20:58 GMT
From: Michael Jensen <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Armando Fortuna) writes:
|> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(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     |
|> >|  [e-mail]     |  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                [e-mail]
Electrical Engineering                [e-mail]
Valparaiso University                [e-mail]
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:05:01 GMT
From: "neil.a.kirby" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Armando Fortuna) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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
------------------------------