Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no249.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 24KB

Date: Tue,  2 Mar 93 05:12:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #249
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  2 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 249

Today's Topics:
                         Battery help needed!
                             Bussard GIF
                           Docking Systems
                            Fallen Angels
                McElwaine disciplined! (somewhat long)
                     Refueling in orbit (4 msgs)
               Shuttle operational reliability (2 msgs)
           SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)

    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: 27 Feb 93 23:07:55 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Battery help needed!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics,sci.aeronautics,sci.chem,sci.engr

I participate in a NASA Get-Away-Special project that required a
relatively high energy density power source.  Unfortunately that
was 7 years ago and I wasn't part of the power group.  However, I
can try to get you in touch with the professor in charge of the
project.  She might have have alot of our research notes including
that on different battery systems.


Her name is  Dr. Nesrin Sarigul from Ohio State University department
of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering.  She is one of the
Structures Professor and the project acronym was DEAP (Directional
Electrostatic Accretion Process).  I don't have either the Email
or the snail mail addresses at hand but I could probably get them
if you are interested.

I think we found on with a very flat discharge profile with a

--

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  [e-mail] | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  [e-mail]      |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 20:12:16 PST
From: Jason Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bussard GIF
Newsgroups: sci.space

Thought I'd just post this here.  I'm sure many of you know about this
project of mine, so if you have questions or suggestions... Shoot!

                                                        Jason Cooper

(that's the NEXT message, this editor can't seem to do it the other way).

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 16:56:10 WET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Docking Systems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi

    A few weeks back I heard that the Russians(or CIS) are about to test a
docking system, which will allow their shuttle to dock with MIR, and that it
would be possible for NASA's shuttles to use this from within their cargo bays
to dock with MIR, or any future Russian space station.  Does anyone have any
information about whethe NASA has considered docking a Shuttle with MIR, it
does have some interesting possibilities,

Ronan Farrell

sig under construction

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 20:49:14 +0000
From: Chris Croughton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fallen Angels
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>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.

You should really have put a 'spoiler' warning on this - not a flame,
just a comment.  You do give away the ending...

>Anyone have information on the design of this critter?

I'd like information as well.  Anyone know how much of the design /
experimental work has actually been done?

>The story itself has much to recommend it and I would urge others to
>read it.  It describes the story of two astronauts shot down over the
>US, after the turn of the century where the greens and the politically
>(in-)correct have taken over.

IMO it's one of their best - I rate it about the same as Oath of Fealty,
another of my favourites.  Unfortunately, a lot of the things it talks
about seem only too possible...

***********************************************************************
*  [e-mail]      *                                     *
*  [e-mail]  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  [e-mail]   *                                     *
***********************************************************************

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

Date: 28 Feb 1993 10:58:27 GMT
From: Carl J Lydick <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine disciplined! (somewhat long)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

In article <wiegand.730742470@lido16>, [e-mail] (Robert Wiegand) writes:
>Perhaps we should return his articles since we don't want them.
>
>Just imagine if he received a thousand copys back of each artice he
>sends out.
>
>He he he. It might be fun. :-)

If you do that, he interprets your returning his junk mail to him as harassment
and sends mail to you system manager asking that you be denied access to the
net.  I speak from experience here.   In my case, he didn't seem to understand
that when he sent mail to my system manager ([e-mail]),
that was just a forwarding address to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 22:23:59 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Well.  Would the phrase faster, cheaper, better come to mind?
>As TOm munoz pointed out,  the THrusters carry 6,500 lbm of fuel
>and weigh 5,000 lbm.   given the fact you are having to haul the
>thrusters back to orbit that's a lot of money.  at 10,000 dollars/pound.
>that's 50 million dollars.  Doesn't money mean anything to you?

   Of course it does, but lives mean more. As I said, NASA chose the
   safer of two methods. You have not made any comment on that point.

>COnsidering that means you'd save 1 shuttle mission for every two
>refueling flights compared to thruster changeout.  maybe you'd even
>a 2:1 savings.  At 500 million a shuttle flight, that adds up fasst.
>But then again. I forget.  if it hasn't been done , why it must be impossible?

   Huh? What hasn't been done? Shuttle demonstrated refueling capabilities
   in 1984. Not cryo, but a good place to start if we need to do cryo
   refueling.

>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.

   Can you be more specific, please?
   The next one that I know of is Cassini. Since it's to be launched
   in 1997, there is no reason NASA can't practice cryo refueling next
   year and have it ready long before '97. You talk as if it's too late
   now, since NASA didn't demonstrate this in 1985, it can't be
   available in 1997?

   (Here me out: Launch a Shuttle with a fair-sized cryo tank in the
   payload bay. Then launch Titan IV with Centaur and Cassini. Shuttle
   to rendezvous with the Centaur/Cassini and top off the tank. Reignite
   Centaur. Cassini on its way somewhat faster.)

>I don't know what you are talking about.  Lunar rendevous and docking
>is ultimately no different from earth rendevous.  Also  apollo would
>dock the LEM while in circum terra space.  they would burn for luna
>and then turn around to dock the LEM.   Apollo was a success because
>docking was a proven reliable technology.  The soviets at that time
>were having a tough time with their own docking program.

    Okay, maybe I screwed this up. My understanding about Apollo planning
    was that there were three methods in consideration:

    1) Direct Ascent on a Nova.
    2) Earth Orbit Rendezvous with CM and LM launched atop two seperate
       boosters.
    3) Lunar Orbit Rendezvous with CM and LM launched to Moon on Saturn 5,
       seperating at the Moon.

    From what I've read, it was a long and heated debate on which method
    to choose. Your argument that EOR and LOR are equal comes with the
    benefit of being 30 years after the fact. They didn't know this at the
    time, which seems to be the relevant factor in this topic.

>If the computer business was run the way the Manned space business
>is run, we'd still be using IBM 704 computers and Guys like you and
>Gary would be shouting about how RISKY Semi-conductors are and that
>Tube Technology is marvelous because it is the only technology.

     I've lost track of the number of times someone argued against the
     Shuttle by pointing out that the Russians are using their trusty,
     40-year-old technology while we sit and wait. "Stick with what
     works" they say.

     So, which side of this fence are you on? You seem to want both.

>I'd be willing to bet that there are more payloads on average that backed
>up waiting on STS then on T-4, T-3, atlas or Ariane.  And that doesn't
>count the payloads that planned on shuttle and switched away.

     I was just trying to point out that Shuttle is not the only launch
     system susceptible to failure, delays, and down-time. This point
     seems lost on you.

>AH.  Now here's a new excuse.  ALan note this one.  THe russians haven't
>done it, so we can't either.  With men like this,  hillary would
>still be walking the hills in wales.  Did I ever say Russians?  in my
>posts on cryo refueling.?  Not that I remember.   no,no,no.  I said
>WE..  The Americans.  THe good, ole, US of A  should develope cryo
>refueling in micro-g,  and that It should be a NASA engineering
>test priority.  Not because a specific mission needs it, but because
>a mission could use it.

     Cute, but ignores the point.

     Your argument is that we should develop cryo refueling techniques
     because some theoretical, nonexistent project could use it. I'm
     simply saying that the Russians have done quite well without it
     (hell, without cryo propulsion at all!) so maybe its not quite the
     priority you imply.

>And the Japanese can't get a H-2 launch to work, and ariane went 0-4?
>a while back too.

     No, Ariane has not had two back-to-back failures, much less 4.

>so by your logic, governments can't launch expendables.
>Please use rational arguments.

     Is *that* what I said? Good heavens, what's PortalX doing to my
     messages???

     Actually, if anything I was saying that governments were better
     than commercial firms at launching boosters. But that's not what
     I was trying to say. I was saying that GD and MM have not done
     particularly well since they took over the Atlas and Titan launch
     operations, respectively.

     Rational arguments, indeed!

  GD and MM are for-profit businesses.
>they are launching payloads, because they believe they can do it
>and make money at it.  NASA runs the shuttle for many reasons, many of
>which are budget and turf oriented in nature.  And the people outside
>of manned space are at best ambivalent and worst openly hostile
>to the shuttle.  Sure the shuttle had some wins, but at the cost sunk into it,
>it's like the trident missile program.  Yeah we won,  now what.
>
>My argument is that NASA should be out doing research.  testing concepts
>and materials.  let private industry turn it into profit.
>By your logic.  All nuclear power plants would be run by the department
>of energy.  why look at TMI and browns ferry.  Private utilities
>are incompetent at running nukes.   No the DOE should be testing
>reactor concepts  inherently safe, breeders,  liquid metals, etc...
>and eltting  the GE's, westinghouses and B&W's of the world build
>these.

      Shall I get some paint and make that soapbox of yours nice and spiffy?
      I haven't figured out how we got from arguing Space Station Refueling
      versus Space Station Module Swapout to the Department of Energy,
      but it was one hell of a ride. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     "Who knows... all this might just be
Brian S. Thorn                     an elaborate simulation running inside
[e-mail]        a little device sitting on someone's table."
                                      -Captain Picard, 'Ship in a Bottle'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 28 Feb 93 10:45:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>>MD: "Nobody's tried that...

>>Ah, but it HAS been tried and works quite well. The Russians and their
>>primitive space program have been doing it for years. Surely your not
>>saying our superior program can't duplicate it?

>Allen, did you read the article I wrote?  I was referring to tethering objects
>down into the atmosphere as a return mechanism, as you have proposed in the
>past.  Nobody's done it, not us, not the Soviets.

So then you agree that returning cargo CAN be done with minimal difficulty
and risk without using Shuttle. I also assume you agree we would see huge
cost savings by doing so.

As to the teather, I suggest we try it. If it works, we save even more.
If it fails, then there are other ways to cause a logistics module to
re-enter.

I would put a small kick motor on the back of the module until the teather
gets working. Solves the same problem without the need of a teather.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 22:24:35 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) w
r
>ites:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn)
>w
>>r
>|
>|     Galileo: That's one.
>|     Cassini: That's two.
>|     Pluto Fast Flyby: Not on that budget, they don't. Hell, they are

>I am glad to know you speak for staehle and the JPL.

     No, I don't speak for JPL, but everything I've read about PFF points
     to doing things as cheaply as possible. I just don't see how orbital
     refueling is going to be in the budget for PFF.

>I believe planners work from what's in hand, not what might be
>done assuming people get some nerve and backbone.  Besides,
>MO and it's sister birds could have planned on it.  put 2 of the
>birds on shuttle centaur and get them there at teh same time.


     No, Titan-Centaur was not available when Voyager was planned, it was
     just an available concept, as cryo refueling is today. I won't even
     mention everything NASA invented to accomplish Apollo.

     I don't think there's room in the payload bay for a Centaur and
     two payloads. Maybe someone else can say for sure. Besides, there
     are no  "sister birds" of MO.

>I think it's easy enough to put a stage onto a rocket.  developing
>techniques and hardware is a little bit harder.

       Not that easy, the first Titan-Centaur failed. Good thing Voyager 1
       wasn't aboard.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     "Who knows... all this might just be
Brian S. Thorn                     an elaborate simulation running inside
[e-mail]        a little device sitting on someone's table."
                                      -Captain Picard, 'Ship in a Bottle'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 28 Feb 1993 06:10:34 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>Allen, did you read the article I wrote?  I was referring to tethering objects
>>down into the atmosphere as a return mechanism, as you have proposed in the
>>past.  Nobody's done it, not us, not the Soviets.

>So then you agree that returning cargo CAN be done with minimal difficulty
>and risk without using Shuttle. I also assume you agree we would see huge
>cost savings by doing so.

Allen, have you been getting enough sleep lately?  Go back and read my article
very slowly and very carefully, pronouncing each word.  You are drawing
conclusions that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

I do agree, that if tethering objects down into the atmosphere lives up to
the claims made for it, it would be a useful and cheap return mechanism in
many cases.  However, we're still trying to figure out how to *unreel* tethers
in space; we're nowhere near the point where we can confidently lower large
objects down and use the energy for boost.  And yes, I agree it's something
we should look into.  However, the technology is nowhere near the stage that
we should be considering it for space station applications; it needs a lot
of work that is going to take years.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 22:28:27 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle operational reliability
Newsgroups: sci.space

>You can stop raving about cargo capacity, and crew size and the arm
>and the payload bay.  We all know about that.  My point is that
>any system witha  low availability rate like the shuttle
>hardly qualifies as "operational"....
>
>pat

    In fact, for the past few years, the free world has had only one
    major (orbital) launch vehicle with a better record than the
    Shuttle, that was the MD Delta II. Not Atlas, Not Titan, Not
    Ariane, Not Long March, Not Pegasus. Just Delta II.

    Your point is valid against just about all western launch
    vehicles, Pat.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     "Who knows... all this might just be
Brian S. Thorn                     an elaborate simulation running inside
[e-mail]        a little device sitting on someone's table."
                                      -Captain Picard, 'Ship in a Bottle'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 22:25:43 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle operational reliability
Newsgroups: sci.space

>You can stop raving about cargo capacity, and crew size and the arm
>and the payload bay.  We all know about that.  My point is that
>any system witha  low availability rate like the shuttle
>hardly qualifies as "operational"....
>
>pat

    In fact, for the past few years, the free world has had only one
    major (orbital) launch vehicle with a better record than the
    Shuttle, that was the MD Delta II. Not Atlas, Not Titan, Not
    Ariane, Not Long March, Not Pegasus. Just Delta II.

    Your point is valid against just about all western launch
    vehicles, Pat.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     "Who knows... all this might just be
Brian S. Thorn                     an elaborate simulation running inside
[e-mail]        a little device sitting on someone's table."
                                      -Captain Picard, 'Ship in a Bottle'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 22:25:05 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Titan III could carry it. Titan IV's bought commercially could also be had
>for roughly Titan III costs. Almost all the extra costs associated with
>Titan IV are NASA paperwork.

   Huh? I thought Titan IV was an Air Force program. NASA has exactly
   *one* payload planned for Titan IV, and that's not until 1997.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     "Who knows... all this might just be
Brian S. Thorn                     an elaborate simulation running inside
[e-mail]        a little device sitting on someone's table."
                                      -Captain Picard, 'Ship in a Bottle'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


To: [e-mail]
Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:57645 sci.astro:32422 alt.sci.planetary:799
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!boulder!ucsu!spot.Colorado.EDU!knapp
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Galileo Earth-Moon Animation
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: spot.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 06:09:12 GMT
Lines: 30
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>                       ==============================
>                        GALILEO EARTH-MOON ANIMATION
>                             February 27, 1993
>                       ==============================
>
>     The Galileo Earth-Moon Conjunction animation is now available at the Ames
>Space Archives.  This animation is courtesy of Paul Geissler and Larry Kendall
>from the University of Arizona, with permission from Mike Belton, Galileo
>Imaging Team Leader.  The animation was formed from 46 images taken by Galileo
>spaecraft shortly after its Earth flyby on December 16, 1992, and is in a
>compressed PICT format to be used with the NIH Image software on the Macintosh.
>Efforts to convert the animation to other formats is currently in progress.
>The animation is available using anonymous ftp to:
>
>        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
>        user:     anonymous
>        cd:       pub/SPACE/ANIMATION
>        files:
>                  Earth_Moon_Movie.Hqx
>                  Earth_Moon_Movie.txt


Can someone with the proper resources put this into mpeg or gl format for
the rest of the computer world?


--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 249
------------------------------