Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no236.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Mon,  1 Mar 93 05:00:15
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #236
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  1 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 236

Today's Topics:
                   Apollo Missions (Recollections)
                        Apollo Moon Missions ?
                        Battery help addendum
                    Battery help needed! (2 msgs)
                  Beamed power transmission on Mars?
                                Blimps
                      Catching Lunar Ice a way!
                            Fallen Angels
                          Freedom refueling
                      Galileo Update - 02/24/93
  Harwood Station design (was Re: Alternative Space Station designs)
                     Refueling in orbit (2 msgs)
                    Spaceflight for under $1,000?
                      Water resupply for SSF (?)

    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: 25 Feb 93 23:07:08 GMT
From: "(Michael Gerhard  aka Elmo P. Suggins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apollo Missions (Recollections)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I don't know about you, but I never felt so good about the space program as
when the early Apollo missions were happening.  People have posted about
their Challenger remembrances.  How about Apollo.

I grew up integrated in the space program.  My dad was a test engineer at
the Apollo test facility at White Sands Missle Range where he helped develop
the facility and run numerous high altitude tests on the command and lunar
module rocket motors.

I remember us audio taping (reel-to-reel as cassettes  didn't exist) almost
all of the Ranger and Surveyor missions as broadcast on TV.  Hardly missed
any.  Also, watched every Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo launch I could (not
live, wish I could have).

I was at the 1969 National Boy Scout Jamboree in Idaho when Apollo 11 landed
on the moon.  We were scheduled to have Nixon come speak to us, but he
craped out and we ended up with something better.  They showed the Apollo 11
landing on big screens (must have been from film, I don't think projection
video existed) and had Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman speak.  Wow.

BTW, Frank Borman is part owner of a car dealership in Las Cruces, New
Mexico and I believe has settled there.

The missions I remember the most are Apollo 1 (what a tragedy), Apollo 8 (I
watched every TV minute), Apollo 11 (mostly post facto), and Apollo 13 (man
how we prayed).

Since I missed almost all of the 1969 TV coverage of Apollo 11, it was a
real treat when in July of 1989, celebrating the 20th anniversary of the
landing, that A&E cable channel rebroadcast the entire CBS(?) coverage of
the mission (including all the loooonnnnng slow parts).  I recorded every
minute of it (yea for VCRs).

I'm old enough to remember just about every space achievment (US and Soviet)
and still get excited when watching a Shuttle launch.  Infact, I had watched
almost every shuttle launch there was for the first few years, even though I
did not have a TV.  Being on the west coast, I had good friends who would
let me barge in on them at sometimes as early as 4:30am to watch the launch.


Anyone else with good memories?


+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     Michael Gerhard             [e-mail]         |
| aka Elmo P. Suggins                                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 22:53:47 GMT
From: "(Michael Gerhard  aka Elmo P. Suggins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Thompson) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Tim Thompson)
>Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ?
>Date: 25 Feb 93 01:23:36 GMT
>
>   I am ignorant, I admit it. My memory has failed. Can someone refresh my
>tired brain cells, and tell me (us) which Apollo mission to the Moon was the
>last one? There couldn't have been too many.

I believe that Apollo 17 was the last one.  Thus, 6 successful moon
landings (Apollo 13 did not land).  Anyone else?

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|     Michael Gerhard             [e-mail]         |
| aka Elmo P. Suggins                                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 25 Feb 1993 20:59:54 GMT
From: Benjamin John McCall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Battery help addendum
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics,sci.engr,sci.chem,sci.aeronautics

Can't believe I forgot to mention this, but we need about 12V...

Ben
--
Ben McCall, Caltech - [e-mail]
SEDS President, Technical Projects Coordinator

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

Date: 25 Feb 1993 20:48:20 GMT
From: Benjamin John McCall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Battery help needed!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics,sci.aeronautics,sci.chem,sci.engr

Hi!

I'm in charge of a student group at Caltech, and we're designing a small,
self-contained payload for the space shuttle to observe gamma-ray bursts.

One major problem we've encountered is the battery pack - we need about 200
Amp-hours of power (at about 0.5 Amps), but it has to weigh less than 100
pounds.

SLA (Sealed Lead-Acid) doesn't seem to have the energy density, and
Alkaline-Manganese (aka Duracell lantern batteries) have a very sloping
discharge curve, making them undesireable.  NASA will not allow us to use
any kind of Lithium-based cells.

Does anyone have any information on alternative battery technologies, or
even suggestions about who I might get in touch with (by phone or by email)?

I've heard a little bit about Silver-Zinc, but have not been able to get in
touch with anyone who has any information.

Any help is greatly appreciated - please reply by email, as I don't necessarily
read this newsgroup.

Thanks in advance,

Ben McCall
[e-mail]

--
Ben McCall, Caltech - [e-mail]
SEDS President, Technical Projects Coordinator

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 22:25:58 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Battery help needed!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics,sci.aeronautics,sci.chem,sci.engr

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (anthony.r.rizzo) writes:
>You might consider using a fuel cell.  NASA already uses a bunch
>of them on the shuttle.  So safety should be less of a problem.

On the contrary, it'll be more.  NASA uses lots of things on the shuttle
that individual experimenters (especially in secondary payloads) are not
allowed to even think about.  For example, Galileo flew on the shuttle
with lithium batteries aboard -- that's how its atmosphere probe is
powered.

If they object to lithium batteries, imagine what their reaction will
be to liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 17:43:18 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beamed power transmission on Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry A Worth) writes:
> >
> >   It's really a shame certain parties rejected beamed power on Earth as
> >unsafe without any real study or basis in fact, simply on the basis of
> >technophobia, while at the same time turning a blind eye toward the very
> >significant, and quite possibly greater, negative impacts of existing
> >power sources (better the devil you know then the angel you don't?).
>
> Hidden, or not so hidden, technophobia is the reason certain back to
> the dark ages tree huggers hate SPS systems. But there are reasons
> for technophiles to disparage the systems as well. Their net efficiency
> is low, their dependence on untried complex space technologies is high,
> and their projected costs are astronomical. Doing things because they
> are neat technical exercises just isn't good enough when the object is
> as important as bulk power supply for a nation.
>
> Gary
>

   An SPS does not need high efficiency to be effective, just as long as
the losses don't heat the atomoshere more than the systems they replace.
I'm not saying that SPS is the ultimate answer to Earth's energy problem.
just that it was unfortunate it, and other alternatives, have been rejected
with as little study as they have. It's not like we have to build one today
(that's the root of the problem, our society never plans, it just reacts to
crisis), some low level on-going research may have addressed some of the
problems and have more fully quantified the risks and benefits, so that
a rational, informed decision could have been made. It's not like existing
systems are without significant negative impacts (can you name a power
system that dumps significant amounts of radioactive isoptopes into the
atmosphere in the course of normal operations, resulting in a number of
lung cancers deaths in the general population every year, and BTW its not
nuclear), many of the costs related with existing systems are not directly
reflected at the gas pump or in your monthly power bill, many will end
up being paid by our children and their children.

   At least some environmental groups are starting to soften their views
on nuclear, not that I'm advocating nuclear, it's just that a little more
open mindedness, tempered with a healty dose of skepticism (as contrasted
with the more common paranoia and negatisim) may eventually lead to some
solutions.

--
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 19:37:30 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Blimps
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>(Frank Crary) writes:
>>>
>>> Balloons are somewhat more difficult on Mars than on Earth, but they
>>> are very feasible. There will be one on the Russian Mars 94 mission
>>> (or so they say...)
>>>
>
>>I more like rigid balloons (deridgebles(sp)). Powered by beamed microwaves
>>either from the ground or from orbit..
>
> A _dirigible_ is a steerable vehicle.  It doesn't have to be rigid.  Rigid
> dirigibles are generally just called "rigids" (after you've established the
> context) or occasionally zeppelins after Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin.
>
>>Don't need to beam power directly at the Blimp, just to the tether that follows
>>behind..
>
> If you were going to use beamed power (which isn't obvious to me) you would
> almost certainly use the huge surface area of the thing to mount your receiver.
>
> Lighter than air vehicles do indeed have lots of potential for Mars, though the
> difficulties can't be ignored.  It is however _far_ easier than floating a
> balloon on Jupiter, something Bill Higgins and I have been puttering around
> with.
>
> --
> Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
>
>     You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
>             In memoria, WDH


Major problem thou with blimps is the winds on Mars and other planets..
Unmanned for now would be okay.. Using a true multitasking computer for a
brain, twin camras for binocular vision, and more than enough servos, you could
do a blimp that would last.. I know it might be a cheap way to explore Mars,
atleast to do long range exploration..

Jupiter has some fun winds..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 19:47:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Catching Lunar Ice a way!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Idea to catch the ice and recycle..

Use a net, cables attached to a spring (actually the thing you can use to
collect energy, used in watches). One coil on either cable.. And set it up so
that the cable can only play out one way (like a watch being wound(sp) up..)

You could use the same idea for catching a meteorite/asteroid but maybe
larger..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 22:30:30 GMT
From: Bob DeMers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fallen Angels
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In the SF book 'Fallen Angels' by Larry Niven & others, a launch
>vehicle named PHOENIX was described.  In the afterward, it was claimed
>that such a launch vehicle (SSTO/VTOL) could be build for $50M-200M.
>
>Anyone have information on the design of this critter?

A subscale test-vehicle, the DC-X, is currently being built.  As near as I
can tell from the flyer that I picked up at the SAE Aerotech conference, it
will fly sometime in the nineties.

The SSTO industry team consists of:  McDonnell Douglas, Pratt & Whitney,
Aerojet, Honeywell, Martin Marietta, MBB, and smaller contractors.

The subscale vehicle will be sub-orbital only.

Of interest to this newsgroup, (spoiler warning) the protagonists use a
microwave beam from a power satellite to warm themselves while crossing an
icepack.
--
Bob DeMers                Honeywell SRC, MN65-2500
internet: [e-mail]      3660 Technology Drive
Tel: [phone]                  Minneapolis, MN 55418

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 17:54:17 GMT
From: tomas o munoz 283-4072 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Freedom refueling
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

|> >>|> Maybe we don't need tankage. Maybe we use fuel from the OMS.
|>
|> >>I don't think the OMS are big enough to fuel both orbiter and SSF.
|>
|> >Well then maybe they can be refueled with expendables. That will save
|> >even more money.
|>
|> Freedom would have weighed roughly five times as much as shuttle and shuttle
|> needs its OMS fuel to get back home.  In light of this, I can't figure out what
|> your last comment means.

With an orbiter weight around 200k - 250k lbm, Freedom is more like
2.5 - 3 times the weight of orbiter.

--
Tom Munoz
==================================================================
Thought for the day: "One million microfiche = one fish"
 ___________      ___     ____    ____
/_________ /|   /___/ \  /__ /\  /___/|
|___   ___|/  /  _  \ /| |   \ \/   | |
    |  | |   |  | |  | | |    \/    | |
    |  | |   |  | |  | | |  |\  /|  | |
    |  | |   |  |_|  |/  |  | \/ |  | |
    |__|/     \_____/    |__|/   |__|/ [e-mail]
==================================================================

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 23:51:58 GMT
From: Michael Pereckas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 02/24/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

>Forwarded from Bill O'Neil, Galileo Project Manager

>                            GALILEO STATUS REPORT
>                              February 24, 1993

>     The Galileo Spacecraft is operating normally in the dual-spin mode
>and is transmitting uncoded telemetry at 40 bps (bits/second).

>     Yesterday, no spacecraft activity was scheduled.  Tracking was scheduled
>over DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter antenna) and DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna).

>     Today, February 24, 1993, real-time commands are scheduled to perform a
>scan actuator subassembly  friction test.  Tracking is scheduled over DSS-14,
>DSS-42 (Canberra 34 meter antenna) and DSS-63.

>     Tomorrow, a wobble identification is scheduled.  Tracking is scheduled
>over DSS-63.
>     ___    _____     ___
>    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
>    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
> ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for
>/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall
>|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | for anything.

--
Michael Pereckas    [e-mail]
"The more I stab myself in the foot, the less I want to kick my head off."

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 19:53:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Harwood Station design (was Re: Alternative Space Station designs)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward Dansavage Wright) writes...
>>
>>Info request to the net....
>>
>>I am interested in space station designs not based on the
>>"power tower" concept as was/is Freedom.  I am interested in
>>alternative designs such as inflatable structures, geodesic
>>dome configurations etc.  Could someone please provide a starting
>>place to look for this information?  Is there a particular NASA
>>installation I should contact?
>>
> You might want to look up the paper by ex-Rockwell engineer Oliver Harwood
> on an "evolutionary" space station design.  It appeared in the Journel of the
> British Interplanetary Society in 1985 (I believe).  The basic structure was
> based on the more rigid tetrahedron rather than the cube-like structure of
> SSF.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Irwin Horowitz                        |
> Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
> California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
> [e-mail]                |
> [e-mail]                 |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I liek the idea.. make the space station a modular structure.. Kind of like a
building block set. Did anyone see the article in Popular Science about using
balloons to form a house and then fill them in. Insulation and such.. I bet you
could use the same things with a Space Station..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 15:41:12 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>>The Centaur which could have benefitted from on-orbit refueling
>>>never had a test program to achieve this mission...
>>
>>    Centaur is an application, but how many payloads would require
>>    this application? Just one: Galileo...
>
>Why do you assume that there will never be another use for it?  I'm
>sure the Cassini people, to take one example, would love to be able to
>go direct to Saturn rather than batting around the inner solar system
>for a while first.  And I expect the Pluto Fast Flyby people wouldn't
>mind some extra delta-vee either.
>
>That doesn't even consider potential missions that aren't even being
>*planned* because they appear to be impractical within the limitations
>of current boosters.

I was under the impression that Centaur has flown on unmanned launchers
many times since 1962. Didn't both Vikings ride Centaurs without Shuttle
assist? Certainly Titan IV can carry anything a Shuttle can into orbit.
Why is Centaur a Shuttle only playload?

Gary

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

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 23:27:33 GMT
From: John E Childers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
[ Much deleted, also this artical seems to be missing a few >>||>#@$%,
  so I don't really know who wrote what.  ]

>Sure.  galileo could have used centaur re-fueling,  but my post speculated
>that any number of other missions could also have used the high performance
>centaur stage.  From what I hear, the planeteary science people

The Galileo/Centuar/Shuttle direct launch to Jupter did not involve
any on-orbit refueling.  It was canceled because NASA became fearful
of all that liquid hydrogen in the fully fueled Centaur going boom
in the cargo bay.


>|>   My point was that no on-orbit cryo fueling has been tested or is
>|>planned to be tested.  THis is a useful technology  and would make
>|>lemonade from lemons.  I would suggest that you look into pushing
>|>this sort of research from within.
>|
>|    Please note that the frequently touted Russians have now cryo
>|    upper stages, hence they haven't done cryo refueling in orbit,
>|    either.
>|
>

Well, the Russians do resupply Mir with O2 for breathing and for pratical
reasons that should be stored in liquid form.  Confermantion or demial
from the experts on the Russain et.al. space program welcomed.

John Childers            | Voting for Clinton may have been
UNCCharlotte            | a mistake, but voting for Bush or
EE Department            | Perot would have been just as
Internet? Try            | big a mistake. :-(
[e-mail]       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  Does anyone on usenet ever offically speak for their computer?

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 23:02:02 GMT
From: John E Childers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spaceflight for under $1,000?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin Batty) writes:
>Space travel, and indeed pretty much anything to do with Space
>seems to require billion dollar budgets. But is this absolutely necessary?
>In an organisation like NASA, or the ESA for that matter, there must be
>many people employed (paid) whose jobs have little or nothing to do
>with actually building a space-craft and launching it. Long term planners,
>financial liasons, Presidential Advisors, caterers, tea-ladies etc, etc.
>The list must be endless.


One of the major problems with NASA, the US govenerent and, many US
companies is a lack of long term planning and reasearch.  Without long
term planning you don't get long term success, just quick fixes.


John Childers            | Voting for Clinton may have been
UNCCharlotte            | a mistake, but voting for Bush or
EE Department            | Perot would have been just as
Internet? Try            | big a mistake. :-(
[e-mail]       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  Does anyone on usenet ever offically speak for their computer?

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

Date: 25 Feb 93 22:32:35 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water resupply for SSF (?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (BAIRD) writes:

>I have heard of a number of proposals to drag ice from the outer system and
>refine it in orbit or get it from the asteriod belt...[use to resupply
> SSF]

In my market analysis of comet mining, I considered NASA space stations
as a customer, albeit a small one.   One problem is that Fred is a very
risky customer -- every year it faces a substantial risk of getting
cancelled, and in the 6-8 years it would take to do the comet run,
it is probable that SSF will be cancelled or scaled-down and its demand
for water and organics greatly cut back.  Another problem is SSF
requires refined materials, not raw materials, and the cost of refineries
might not be justified by SSF alone.  The main problem, though, is that
NASA has not done any internal studies of ice mining, this possibility
just hasn't entered the consciousness of very many people in the space
community.

So, we need to start from square one.  In the short term, NASA should
devote a tiny fraction (< 1%) of SSF funds to studying the ice rocket
and related scenarios, and building prototype thermal-steam engines.
It should also spend about 10% of one year's SSF funding, or $200
million, on a thorough telescopic composition survey of asteroids
and comets, and another 10% on one or two mini-probes.

This small investment could pay off handsomely for future
space stations, and even more so for future missions to the Moon
and Mars.  But the biggest customer would not be space stations
themselves, but any space industry that needs structure, propellants,
volatile or organic industrial inputs, shielding, life support, etc.
in Earth orbit or beyond.

> I would see that as being something like $2 billion to $3.5 billion.....
> Would that be too high for a resupply system as I described?

This is a reasonable cost guess, about three times the cost of
the original large-scale Rosetta comet sampling mission, though it
is highly dependent on our ability to automate the ice processing
plants.  If astronauts have to be taken out to the ice, the cost might
easily rise to a level similar to that of a manned Mars mission, which
NASA estimates would cost $400 billion.  This illustrates the overwhelming
importance of automation technology to space industry.  SSF resupply
itself might not justify expenditure of $3 billion plus refinery costs,
but the combination of benefits for space stations, future Moon and Mars
activities, and above all Earth orbit space industry is in the short
run at least $1 billion per year, and in the long run (20-30 years)
potentially greater than $100 billion per year.

Nick Szabo                    [e-mail]
--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 236
------------------------------