Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no199.txt

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 05:04:45
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #199
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 14 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:
                          Asteroid explorer
                    Clinton, Gore, Space (2 msgs)
                  Clinton and Space Funding (5 msgs)
                        International overview
                          Leftover Martians
                NASA working on Apollo rerun (3 msgs)
                          new name for NASA?
                  Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...

    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: 13 Sep 92 23:49:59 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asteroid explorer
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>As per the AO you get $17million (1992) for hardware, R&D,
>staff etc, same again for launch; mission ops and data analysis
>are extra. So, put together a CCD camera, a (IR?) spectrometer,
>a low(medium?) gain antenna, redundant tape recorders, the best CPU
>and memory that's flight qualified (is the intel chip qualified yet?)
>and a couple of ion thrusters with as much fuel as possible - then
>go cruise asteroids, first an Earth crosser, then follow it out
>to the belt and peek around, keep going till you run out of fuel
>or something dies; main problem would be a power supply and weight
>constraints... Nick, Phil? you wanna put your time where your mouth
>is?

I've been kind of busy and am only now getting the time to spend
on crazy ideas and research projects again...

I've been thinking, though... what we really want from these
asteroids is structural data. How could we get that?

[Following idea Patent Pending Phil's Crazy Ideas Inc. ...] ;-)

As Marvin Minsky pointed out a short while ago, small fuel tanks
and large fuel tanks have the same mass to fuel mass ratio. So
for an ion-drive powered probe you could with little mass overhead
have lots of small tanks instead of one large tank for your
fuel. Suppose for example you use six tanks.

Every once in a while in the mission you need to "stage" and
drop an empty fuel tank. Well, instead you use it: you keep
it around until you're about to do a flyby of an asteroid.
A small dogleg/jettision manuever, and you've slammed a fuel tank
into the asteroid, giving your seismometer network lots of data.

Oh, you don't have a seismometer network on the asteroid?
Hmmm... what about using a laser rangefinder of some sort,
to observe the "ringing" in the rock? Would this only be
feasible for low probe flyby speeds?

(which would cause problems: you would like the fuel tank to
slam in at high speed...)

Well?

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 00:27:09 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton, Gore, Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John McDonald) writes:

>begin 664 signature.uu
>M:F]H;E\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7VUC9&]N86QD"@E!
>M<G1I<W1S(%!R;W9O:V4@06QI96YS"E]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?
>M+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+0IC96YT97(@(" @("!F;W(@(" @("!E=78@
>2(" @("!A<W1R;W!H>7-I8W,*

Could someone tell me what this was? nn's built in decoder
--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 00:20:57 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton, Gore, Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John McDonald) writes:


>I think something is missing from the discussion of the
>Democratic position on space.

>The one thing no one has noticed, is that both SSF and
>the Shuttle are PORK BARREL projects.  NO president, Dem
>or GOP or Lib or Green, would dump these projects outright.

The libertarians apparently live to dump pork barrel projects
outright.

>Both projects represent thousands of jobs and billions of
>dollars for the economies of the communities that host
>NASA centers.  To suggest that a president would outright
>dump such an economic boon is absurd.

They're doing the same thing to the DOD right now and it's
hurting a lot of communities.

>The space station depends on the Shuttle for its very
>existence.

Not according to Allen Sherzer. He has a couple dozen or
so alternative launch and supply vehicles.

>The advocation of alternative launch systems does not
>preclude the perpetuation of the Shuttle program, and
>may even save us a little money on the way.

Actually it does, because the people in the Shuttle program
(or more precisely funding the shuttle program) look dumber
and more venal the more successful the alternative vehicle
is.

>Am i the
>only one who questioned why we were spending half a billion
>bucks to save a privately owned communications satellite?

Yup. I didn't say anything about it. I'm just sweetness and
light about everything, and never flame anyone. Steve, pass
the thorazine, would you?

>Am i the only one who wonders if it is worth half a billion
>bucks to study whether wasps will reproduce in space?

They're not spending half a billion! Shuttle flights only
cost $ 400 million. That's a _large_ difference from half
a billion. Almost one hundred million dollars! Stop inflating
NASA costs like that!

>I happen to think the space station is a pretty good idea,
>but i have no illusions about its purpose.  It is primarily
>to be build to keep corporations in business.  When in orbit,
>it will be used to develop technologies that basically support
>the businesses with the occasional spin-off to the public.

>But if someone were to tell me that the SSF monies were to be
>taken and given to smaller unmanned projects like a mission to
>Pluto, Cassini, Magellan's survival, COBE, etc... then i would
>have no hesitation.  The knowledge return per dollar is much
>higher for those smaller missions....

What about SSRT as well? Would you mind seeing shuttle diverted
into SSRT and NASP and Baby Saturn, Jr.?

>John McDonald
>begin 664 signature.uu
>M:F]H;E\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7VUC9&]N86QD"@E!
>M<G1I<W1S(%!R;W9O:V4@06QI96YS"E]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?
>M+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+0IC96YT97(@(" @("!F;W(@(" @("!E=78@
>2(" @("!A<W1R;W!H>7-I8W,*

Hmmph. Looks like I'll have to decode it.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 00:21:45 GMT
From: StarWatcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

[e-mail] (Vignes Gerard M) writes:

>     but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>     hostile to technology and research spending
>     and especially to projects involving
>     space exploration and astronomy.


I beg to differ.

In article <SPACE PROGRAM: Position Paper> the "Bill and Al Show" write:


:      CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM



: The end of the Cold War offers new opportunities
: and new challenges for our civilian space program.
: In recent years the program has lacked vision and
: leadership.  Because the Reagan and Bush
: administrations have failed to establish priorities
: and to match program needs with available
: resources, the National Aeronautics and Space
: Administration (NASA) has been saddled with more
: missions than it can successfully accomplish.

: Bill Clinton and Al Gore support a strong U.S.
: civilian space program -- for its scientific value,
: its economic and environmental benefits, its role
: in building new partnerships with other countries,
: and its inspiration of our nations youth.  A
: Clinton/Gore Administration space program will seek
: to meet the needs of the United States and other
: nations while moving toward our long-term space
: objectives, including human exploration of the
: solar system.  A Clinton/Gore space program will
: also promote the development of new technologies,
: create new jobs for our highly-skilled former
: defense workers, and increase our understanding of
: the planet and its delicate environmental balance.

: Move beyond the Cold War

: *    Restore the historical funding equilibrium
:      between NASA and the Defense Departments space
:      program. The Reagan and Bush Administrations
:      spent more on defense space initiatives than
:      on civilian space projects.

: *    Achieve greater cooperation in space with our
:      traditional allies in Europe and Japan, as
:      well as with Russia.  Greater U.S.-Russian
:      cooperation in space will benefit both
:      countries, combining the vast knowledge and
:      resources both countries have gathered since
:      the launch of Sputnik in 1957.

: Improve the American economy through space

: *    Direct NASA to give high priority to continued
:      improvement of the American civil aircraft
:      industry, which faces increasing international
:      competition.  NASA research can play an
:      important role in developing less polluting,
:      more fuel efficient, and quieter aircraft.

: *    Work to improve our space industries
:      competitiveness.  Well direct NASA to develop
:      cutting-edge rocket and satellite
:      technologies.  We will also develop a new,
:      cost effective, and reliable launch system to
:      maximize scientific and commercial payloads.

: Link NASA and the environment

: *    Support NASA efforts -- like Mission to Planet
:      Earth -- to improve our understanding of the
:      global environment.

: *    Call on NASA to develop smaller, more focused
:      missions which address pressing environmental
:      concerns.

: Strengthen NASA and education

: *    Direct NASA to expand educational programs
:      that improve American performance in math and
:      science. Space education can help maintain our
:      technological edge and improve our
:      competitiveness.

: *    Direct NASA to expand the outreach of its
:      educational efforts beyond its five field
:      centers, so that millions more people can
:      learn about space.

: *    Maintain the Space Shuttles integral role in
:      our civilian space program.  The Shuttle is
:      extremely complex and will always be expensive
:      and difficult to operate.  But we must take
:      full advantage of its unique capabilities.

: *    Support completion of  Space Station Freedom,
:      basing its development on the twin principles
:      of greater cooperation and burden sharing with
:      our allies. By organizing effectively on this
:      project, we can pave the way for future joint
:      international ventures, both in space and on
:      Earth.

: Encourage planetary exploration through the best
: space science

: *    Stress efforts to learn about other planets.
:      These improve our understanding of our own
:      world and stimulate advances in computers,
:      sensors, image processing and communications.

: *    Fully utilize robotic missions to learn more
:      about the universe.

: *    Although we cannot yet commit major resources
:      to human planetary exploration, this dream
:      should be among the considerations that guide
:      our science and engineering.  Because the
:      entire world will share the benefits of human
:      planetary explorations, the costs for any such
:      projects should be borne by other nations as
:      well as the United States.

: The Record

: *    Senator Al Gore chairs the Senate Subcommittee
:      on Science, Technology, and Space, which has
:      primary responsibility for NASA and plays a
:      key role in efforts to strengthen and
:      revitalize America's space program.

: *    Strongly favors a balanced manned and unmanned
:      space program. Supports completion of Space
:      Station Freedom and enhancements to the fleet
:      of Space Shuttles to ensure safety and
:      reliability.

: *    Has championed Mission to Planet Earth, an
:      initiative designed to gather comprehensive
:      information on the Earth's changing
:      environment. He strongly supports  efforts to
:      channel information on the Earth's environment
:      to teachers and school children.

: *    Strongly supports efforts to strengthen our
:      leadership in aviation.

: *    Has tried to use space exploration as a bridge
:      to international cooperation, not competition.
:      Pushed the administration to investigate the
:      possibilities for integrating surviving
:      elements of the Soviet space program into the
:      U.S. program in ways beneficial to America and
:      its aerospace workers.

: *    Following the Challenger disaster, Senator
:      Gore uncovered quality assurance deficiencies
:      at NASA, gaining a greater commitment to
:      quality assurance and accountability at NASA.

[Other speeches/position papers/etc. from both the Comm^H^H^H^HDemocrats
and the Fac^H^H^HRepublicans are availible through Cleveland Freenet.
Telnet to freenet-in-a.cwru.edu to access.]

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher)         "I didn't live in this
Internet:  [e-mail]             century."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD                -- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: [e-mail]
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher

Marrou/Lord in '92

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 00:09:25 GMT
From: "Elizabeth G. Levy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (alex) writes:
>>    Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests
>>that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment.
>>Both Clinton and Gore have suggested increased suppport for national
>>computer networks ("internet", maybe you've heard of it), and a major
>>part of Clintons economic policy is government funding of technical R&D.
>>Thats not what I usually think of when I think "hostile".
>
>    Because they're going to have to get
>    lots and lots of money from somewhere,
>    ---without raising taxes or slashing social spending---
>    and they're going to have to do it in a Big Hurry,
>    since there will be a lot of pressure on them to get quick results
>    in order to prepare for the next election.
>
>    (4 years is a short time by political/economic measures)
>
>    Cutting deeply into research funding and space exploration
>    is an easy way to do this without losing too much support.
>
>    Perhaps you remember the slogans of the 60's:
>
>        We shouldn't be sending people to the moon,
>        while there are still people starving here on Earth.

Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
economically beneficial.  And you're probably totally off base, given
the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore.


--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 01:31:01 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

[e-mail] (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:



>Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
>necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
>economically beneficial.  And you're probably totally off base, given
>the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore.

Yes, but thanks to Al Gore's Porkization of the Space Program,
military research is the last refuge in the US government
of advanced propulsion research. After Gore manages to
cut that tree down, like Isle Derniere, the whole tree
is going to wash away.

I am cross-posting this back to sci.space because I think
that right now the idea of a separate talk.politics.space
is asinine.

Oh, I just checked. It's crossposted all over the place. Good.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:13:28 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
>necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
>economically beneficial.

This isn't clear in two respects: First, military research has yielded
substantial non-weapons technology (especially with respect to
aerospace technology.) This is of great benifit to the civilian
economy. Second, I don't understand why military research is no longer
needed, simply because "the Cold War is over." If anything, the
world seems to be more, not less, violent (with wars in Iraq, Croatia,
Bosnia, ex-Soviet Georgia, Tazakistan (sp?) and (off and on) Armenia and
Azerbijan. The primary advantage of the US military is high technology
(compared to the rest of the world), so I'm not sure why you don't
consider military research usefull.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 05:28:37 GMT
From: Mike Van Pelt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>Yes, but thanks to Al Gore's Porkization of the Space Program,
>military research is the last refuge in the US government
>of advanced propulsion research. After Gore manages to
>cut that tree down, like Isle Derniere, the whole tree
>is going to wash away.

Good point.  Does anyone know if Clinton/Gore has taken any position on
DCX -> DCY -> DC-1?  Currently, DCX being funded by SDIO, and is bound
to be one of the first things to be trashed by a (God forbid!)
Clinton/Gore administration.
--
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
[e-mail]                            No whimper, no blast.
[e-mail]                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 00:02:11 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: International overview
Newsgroups: sci.space

I saw this in Space News a short while back and thought y'all might be
interested.  The data is theirs, the format's mine as are all potential mistakes


Country         Civil Space     Programs                Launch Sites
                Budget                                 (operational to orbit)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina       $10 million     Astronomy satellites

Australia       $13 million     Deep Space tracking,
                                space science

Austria         $28.5 million   ESA, mission to Mir    Kourou

Belgium         $134.8 million  ESA                     Kourou

Brazil          $100 million    launch vehicles,
                remote sensing sats

Canada          $292 million    ESA associate member,
                robotics, comsats

China           $1.2 billion    launchers, comsats,     Jiquan, Taiyuan,
                meteorological sats     Xichang

Denmark         $28.9 million   ESA                     Kourou

Finland         $46 million     ESA associate member

France          $1.38 billion   ESA, Mir mission,       Kourou
                remote sensing

Germany         $969 million    ESA, comsats, space     Kourou
                plane research

India           $182 million    Launchers, comsats      Shar

Ireland         $5.9 million    ESA                     Kourou

Israel          $6 million      launchers, comsats,     Palmachim AFB
                researech sats

Italy           $973.4 million  ESA, tethers            Kourou, San Marco

Japan           $1.262 billion  Space Station,          Tanegeshima (NASDA)
                remote sensing, lunar   Kagoshima (ISAS)
                probes, launchers,
                space science

Netherlands     $87.4 million   ESA, X-ray & IR cameras  Kourou

Norway          $29.2 million   ESA, sounding rockets   Kourou

Pakistan        $7.5 million    Research sats,
                sounding rockets

Russia          $741 million    launchers, planetary    Plestek, Kapustin Yar,
                probes, Mir, comsats    Baikonur
                remote sensing

South Africa       ???          launchers & sats

South Korea     $50 million     comsats

Spain           $144.6 million  ESA microsatellites     Kourou

Sweden          $81.9 million   ESA, comsats, science   Kourou
                sats

Switzerland     $60.8 million   ESA                     Kourou

Taiwan          $75 million     comsats

Ukraine            ???          launchers, instrumenets

United Kingdom  $206.6 million  ESA, remote sensing    Kourou

United States   $14.7 billion   shuttle, Freedom       Kennedy, Vandenberg AFB
        (NASA & NOAA)   space science,         Cape Canaveral AFB,
                planetary probes,      Wallops
                remote sensing


Notes:   Launch sites for Russia include former Soviet sites outside Russia's
borders.  Budget is given at current exchange rates.  ESA has a budget of $3
billion.  Projects include launchers and space station programs



--
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to
[e-mail]   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 00:16:06 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Leftover Martians
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:

>[e-mail] (brad thornborrow) writes:

>> I havn't been following the entire conversation here, but it seems to me
>> everybody is missing the gravity problem.  Last time I checked, Mars' gravity
>> was not strong enough to keep oxygen molecules from escaping into space over
>> time.  So, even if one could start plant-life on Mars, you'd have to have a
>> heck of a lot of it to keep the oxygen from just "floating away"!!!

Actually, most of Mars' current atmospheric loss is apparently due
to its lack of a magnetic field. _Please_ check out the _Nature_
that dealt with the Phobos probe data. Phobos returned a lot of
data noone knew about, and was a lot more of a success than everyone
seems to think it was.

It got a heck of a lot done before the aliens ate it.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:07:04 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:


>Nick, talk to _anyone_ who know's what they're talking about and you'll see
>that new suits are high on the list of required technology for the Moon.
>Both the astronauts and the suits suffered significant wear and tear on the
>Moon.  They (both the suits and the wearers) just plain wouldn't last 45 days.


Check out _For All Mankind_ to see this. One of the main things standing
between the astronaut and his ability to work in the space enviornment
is the thing standing between him and his enviornment: his space suit.

Anyone for skintights (that is, anyone besides Frank Crary, who
almost predictably doesn't like them)?


--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 00:26:19 GMT
From: GRASSO CHRISTOPHER A <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

Nick Szabo writes:
>The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in
>an enlarged Apollo-style capsule.  The craft would land directly on
>the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing
>costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the
>equator.  The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the
>size of Saturn 5!
> ...
>The lander would consist both of LOX/LH
>propellants and storable propellants for the return trip, a rather
>expensive, kluged combination.

According to the NASA documents I have seen, this system is intended
to act as a portion of the full-up base component delivery system. The
landing stage is to be common for both manned flights and unmanned
base component deliveries, in order to increase commonality of hardware
and save money. Since the base requires the delivery of components, some
sort of HLV is considered necessary for the delivery of surface habitation
modules and the follow-on base construction components.  Therefore,
the manned return capsule is to be mated to the same kind of lander that
can deliver pieces of the base.

I think the decision to launch direct from the Earth to the lunar surface
was made in order to eliminate on-orbit mating of the cargo to a lunar
transfer vehicle. This particular design also eliminates the need to
deliver astronauts to an LEO station for later transfer to the lunar
surface - useful if the space station is canceled, or the transportation
system servicing the station is grounded.

>The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo.

I believe that they are to be preceded by a large number of unmanned
missions for resource mapping. The FLO missions provide an opportunity
to test technologies necessary for constructing a base, and perform
scientific and engineering research that cannot be automated. Serious
questions remain as to how to perform some of the most basic construction
tasks on the lunar surface. Techniques for operations as simple as
digging holes in the regolith require full-up testing, as they have never
been performed on the scale that a lunar base may require.

>Like Apollo, these missions would be utterly dependent on Earth for
>food, water, and shelter.

True. But, they are not intended to be the final base, they are intended
to lay the groundwork for a permanent research facility. If no further
missions are performed, they will indeed be "like Apollo".

    -Chris Grasso
     Center for Space Construction
     University of Colorado

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

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:34:03 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>Nick, talk to _anyone_ who know's what they're talking about and you'll see
>>that new suits are high on the list of required technology for the Moon.
>>Both the astronauts and the suits suffered significant wear and tear on the
>>Moon.  They (both the suits and the wearers) just plain wouldn't last 45 days.

Wearing out isn't even the first problem: The Apollo suits, and the Shuttle
suits for that matter, used non-rechargable batteries and carbon-dioxied
scrubbers. I don't have the numbers for Apollo suits, but the Shuttle
suits go through about 1 kg of consumables/hour. A new suit design,
with extended use in mind, could cut this in half. (By the way, 1kg/hr
means 700-800 kg for a 45-day, 4-man mission with EVAs every other
day.) 400 kg of extra payload each mission is, alone, enough to justify
a new design.

>Check out _For All Mankind_ to see this. One of the main things standing
>between the astronaut and his ability to work in the space enviornment
>is the thing standing between him and his enviornment: his space suit.

The lower body mobility was especially poor: Bending over was almost
impossible.

>Anyone for skintights (that is, anyone besides Frank Crary, who
>almost predictably doesn't like them)?

I don't so much oppose the idea, as think _alot_ of research would
need to go into skintights before they are a safe alternative.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 03:11:23 GMT
From: "C. Taylor Sutherland III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: new name for NASA?
Newsgroups: sci.space

New name for NASA:

WAFS

We Ain't Found Shit!

copied without permission from SpaceBalls:  The Movie.

No, no.  I got it.

SBSA

SpaceBalls:  the Space Administration.

Oh shit.  There goes the planet.


--
    We're not hitchhiking anymore.  We're riding!
        -the immor(t)al Ren & Stimpy
The Fly Boy  <| E-MAIL:  [e-mail] |>
+--<| My life is a math question with one equation and 42 unknowns. |>--+

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

Date: 13 Sep 92 23:46:53 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:


>The mission has only been proposed.  If it is approved, then the mission won't
>officially start until around 1994.

That's the time limit for talking them into using ion drive?

Heck, in those two years, you could prob. run a test mission
for the hall effect thrusters...

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.

Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 199
------------------------------