From: Dennis Chamberlin <drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com>
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
----- News saved at 23 Apr 93 22:22:40 GMT
In article <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
>
> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!
>
> This paper BOTH describes how heavenly bodys can be stationary,
>ether sucking structures, AND why we observe "orbital" motion!!
> "Light-Years" between galaxies is a misnomer. The distance is
>closer to zero, as time and matter are characteristics of this phase
>of reality, which dissipates outward with each layer of the onion.
>(defining edge = 0 ether spin)
> To find out about all of this, I recommend studying history.
Well, I'm working on it, but getting a little impatient. So far,
I've made it through Egyptian, Chinese, and Greek cultures, and
up through the Rennaisance. But so far, these insights just don't
seem to be gelling. Perhaps it's in an appendix somewhere.
In its own right, though, the history is kind of fun. Lots of
good yarns in there, with varied and interesting characters. And,
more to come.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 06:09:19 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: RIMSAT, US/Russian joint venture
Newsgroups: sci.space
I've been to three talks in the last month which might be of interest. I've
transcribed some of my notes below. Since my note taking ability is by no means
infallible, please assume that all factual errors are mine. Permission is
granted to copy this without restriction.
Michael Sternberg, Cheif of Operations of RIMSAT, was invited to speak at an
informal lunch held by ACDIS here on the campus of the University of Illinois.
ACDIS is an organization on campus that deals with Arms Control, Disarmament and
International Security. RIMSAT was considered an appropriate topic because the
company is using Russian launchers and satellites. I think it also helped that
his daughter is a grad student in the International Relations program.
The concept behind RIMSAT apparently began when Matt Neilson (?) went to Tonga
to visit a friend. While he was there, he somehow ended up visiting the king,
who happened to be a big TV fan. Matt bought the King a satellite dish, which
the king thought was really nifty. Since Tonga has a GNP of about $70 million,
His Majesty asked if there was any way to make money off this. Matt thought
there probably was, so at his suggestion, Tonga applied for 31 geosynchronous
satellite slots. While this isn't entirely off the wall, it was very unusual,
seeing as Tonga was a tiny kingdom with no space program, and 31 is a lot of
slots.
The whole thing was debated in the appropriate regulatory agency and Carl
Hilliard (who is apparently a respected space lawyer) wrote several opinions
supporting Tonga's case. Eventually Tonga ended up with 7 slots, ranging from
70 E to 170 E (slots are designated by the longitude over which they reside).
According to Sternberg, four of these, from 130 E to 142 E are the best in the
world because they are excellently placed for communications between Hawaii and
the Pacific Rim.
RIMSAT was formed to use these slots. It was officially formed in Nevis as a tax
haven. They tried for a few years to raise funds in the west, however, to
fill 7 slots with western satellites launched on western launchers would have
cost approximately $2 billion. It's not easy to raise that kind of money.
Eventually, they hit upon the idea of using Russian hardware. They began
negotiating with Glavkosmos for hardware. Mr Sternberg describes operating in
Moscow in such harsh terms that I don't think I'll visit there for a long time.
Besides a significant lack of creature comforts, he was not happy with the way
that people operate. For example "everybody can sell you everything."
Everyone can show the proper documents and licenses that indicate they are the
only ones who have the authority to sell what ever you want to by.
Eventually, RIMSAT arranged a deal with Glavkosmos for 6 satellites at a cost
of $150 million. However, Glavkosmos lost favor after the coup. Sternberg
says that this is because they were basically a bunch of KGB operatives who
went to trade shows and picked up lots of brochures. Since Glavkosmos was
out of power, he had to renegotiate the deal with the new authorities. He
again described life in a Moscow hotel in rather unfavorable terms. Eventually,
he worked out a deal and on Dec 4, 1992 he met with Koptev, who heads the
Russian space program, to sign the deal. Koptev insisted on a few concessions
before signing and according to Sternberg he arranged these new rules to
allow himself to form another company to do the exact same thing as RIMSAT.
The next step was to meet with the builders of the hardware, NPO Applied
Mechanics -- NPO PM to use their acronym. This organization is located in
Siberia (can't figure out how to spell the town, I need an atlas) and has built
about 1500 vehicles since the dawn of the space age. Sternberg commented that
siberians are very different from Musovites. They are hard workers, honest
people who team up to get things done, very much like midwesterners. At this
point there were some comments from the audience that agreed with his opinion on
both siberians and midwesterners :-)
Sternberg had lots of good things to say about NPO PM. His company is
apparently lookng for $100 million to invest in the firm to become 50% partners.It apparently costs the Russians about $4 million to build a satellite that
would sell for $50 million in the west. If you want to give them
specifications, they'll build you a satellite. For the particular satellites
that RIMSAT will be using, costs run about $378,000 per transponder year. This
compares to $810,000 t/y in the U.S. They can sell their time for about $1.1
million compared to $2.6 million in the U.S. RIMSAT will launch their
satellites on Protons. To get the best prices, they bought in bulk. They
have the rights to twelve launches, so if any of you need a lift I can give
you their address. The first launch is scheduled for October and they are
getting one used satellite from the Russians, which is being moved into place
now.
Tidbits:
* Sternberg says this kind of thing has to be done by entrepreneurs, not big
business because big business is just like what they have over there, except
that "we have better paper, both in the bathroom and in the copier."
* Russian launches are self insured. The promise to replace a failed launch
within 9 months.
* Major investors in RIMSAT include Russell 20/20, which is a huge retirement
fund organization, Cellsat, which is a big telecom business in southeast Asia,
and a fund operated by some of the big names in U.S aerospace which he says is
sort of an insurance policy for them if this really takes off.
* He downplayed the instabilites in the ex-USSR saying that we are worried
partly because we aren't used to seeing Russia as anything but an unvarying
monolith. Italy gets a new government "every two weeks" but we don't worry
because we're used to it. He predicted that once we get used to seeing what
really goes on in Russia we won't worry about their stability as much.
* Part of the problem with cooperative ventures is the problem of transfering
money. The central bank has a policy of taking hard currency payments, putting
25% in their coffers and replacing the rest with the "equivalent" value in
rubles. To get around this, RIMSAT pays their hard currency into an Austrian
bank account. NPO PM then pays their contractors with foreign currency so that
the only the contractors get swindled by the government.
* One of the big problems RIMSAT has had is stonewalling by the western
satellite industry. However, Intelsat recently bought three of the same type
of satellites, which was rather reassuring.
* The biggest worry most people have about russian satellites is the primitive
technology and shorter lifetime. The older Gorizont (Horizon) satellites have
a lifetime of about 5 years, while the more modern Express satellites compare
well with western technology and last about 8 years. While this is much
shorter than 15 years for western satellites, Sternberg downplayed the
difference. At these prices they can afford to launch new ones. In addition,
shorter lifetimes mean that they can replace their equipment with newer
technology so they will be able to compete better than older, out of date
hardware.
--
Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Find a way or make one."
-attributed to Hannibal
------------------------------
Date: 23 Apr 93 20:47:22 GMT
From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU
Subject: Space Design Movies?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Is there a few Grasp pictures of space related items, namely Space Station
Designs, so you can see the "finished" revolt around..
If you don't know what a grasp prograsm is.. Check out some adult entertainment
files and see what I mean.. Or maybe geta few GIF files and create a "slide
shows" (I think Cshow can do this)..
I liek to be able to see a space shuttle design in a AutoCAD program or to see
it revolt around and look at it.
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
------------------------------
Date: 23 Apr 1993 17:45 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Apr23.184732.1105@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes...
{Description of "External Tank" option for SSF redesign deleted}
>Mark proposed this design at Joe Shea's committee in Crystal City,
>and he reports that he was warmly received. However, the rumors
>I hear say that a design based on a wingless Space Shuttle Orbiter
>seems more likely.
Yo Ken, let's keep on-top of things! Both the "External Tank" and
"Wingless Orbiter" options have been deleted from the SSF redesign
options list. Today's (4/23) edition of the New York Times reports
that O'Connor told the panel that some redesign proposals have
been dropped, such as using the "giant external fuel tanks used
in launching space shuttles," and building a "station around
an existing space shuttle with its wings and tail removed."
Currently, there are three options being considered, as presented
to the advisory panel meeting yesterday (and as reported in
today's Times).
Option "A" - Low Cost Modular Approach
This option is being studied by a team from MSFC. {As an aside,
there are SSF redesign teams at MSFC, JSC, and LaRC supporting
the SRT (Station Redesign Team) in Crystal City. Both LeRC and
Reston folks are also on-site at these locations, helping the respective
teams with their redesign activities.} Key features of this
option are:
- Uses "Bus-1", a modular bus developed by Lockheed that's
qualified for STS and ELV's. The bus provides propulsion, GN&C
Communications, & Data Management. Lockheed developed this
for the Air Force.
- A "Power Station Capability" is obtained in 3 Shuttle Flights.
SSF Solar arrays are used to provide 20 kW of power. The vehicle
flies in an "arrow mode" to optimize the microgravity environment.
Shuttle/Spacelab missions would utilize the vehilce as a power
source for 30 day missions.
- Human tended capability (as opposed to the old SSF sexist term
of man-tended capability) is achieved by the addition of the
US Common module. This is a modified version of the existing
SSF Lab module (docking ports are added for the International
Partners' labs, taking the place of the nodes on SSF). The
Shuttle can be docked to the station for 60 day missions.
The Orbiter would provide crew habitability & EVA capability.
- International Human Tended. Add the NASDA & ESA modules, and
add another 20 kW of power
- Permanent Human Presence Capability. Add a 3rd power module,
the U.S. habitation module, and an ACRV (Assured Crew Return
Vehicle).
Option "B" - Space Station Freedom Derived
The Option "B" team is based at LaRC, and is lead by Mike Griffin.
This option looks alot like the existing SSF design, which we
have all come to know and love :)
This option assumes a lightweight external tank is available for
use on all SSF assembly flights (so does option "A"). Also, the
number of flights is computed for a 51.6 inclination orbit,
for both options "A" and "B".
The build-up occurs in six phases:
- Initial Research Capability reached after 3 flights. Power
is transferred from the vehicle to the Orbiter/Spacelab, when
it visits.
- Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
language) is achieved after 8 flights. The U.S. Lab is
deployed, and 1 solar power module provides 20 kW of power.
- Permanent Human Presence Capability occurs after 10 flights, by
keeping one Orbiter on-orbit to use as an ACRV (so sometimes
there would be two Orbiters on-orbit - the ACRV, and the
second one that comes up for Logistics & Re-supply).
- A "Two Fault Tolerance Capability" is achieved after 14 flights,
with the addition of a 2nd power module, another thermal
control system radiator, and more propulsion modules.
- After 20 flights, the Internationals are on-board. More power,
the Habitation module, and an ACRV are added to finish the
assembly in 24 flights.
Most of the systems currently on SSF are used as-is in this option,
with the exception of the data management system, which has major
changes.
Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a
regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
- Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
- 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
- body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
micrometeroid & orbital debris)
- 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
- 7 berthing ports
- a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
(twice the volume of skylab).
- 7 floors, center passageway between floors
- 10 kW of housekeeping power
- graceful degradation with failures (8 power channels, 4 thermal
loops, dual environmental control & life support system)
- increased crew time for utilization
- 1 micro-g thru out the core module
------------------------------
Date: 24 Apr 1993 06:09:15 GMT
From: "Michael F. Santangelo" <mike@starburst.umd.edu>
Subject: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Newsgroups: sci.space
dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...
>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a
>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
> - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
> - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
> - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
> micrometeroid & orbital debris)
> - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
> - 7 berthing ports
> - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
> (twice the volume of skylab).
> - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
> - 10 kW of housekeeping power
Only 10KW?
> - graceful degradation with failures (8 power channels, 4 thermal
> loops, dual environmental control & life support system)
> - increased crew time for utilization
> - 1 micro-g thru out the core module
Ha! "North America Modular SPACE STATION construction" :-)
Same apprach, same reasoning: "construction occurs under assembly
line conditions, no random weather problems interupting site-work
on your home - better quality control" -- sounds like first "-"
point above :-)
Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
a modular home maybe has altered my mind). The only thing
that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
a nosecone on it and "just launching it." I have this vision
of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).
