Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_4/V9_440.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cYQFmNy00UkZ1oCE4B>;
          Wed, 17 May 89 03:17:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 17 May 89 03:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #440

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 440

Today's Topics:
         Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
             Re: heavy launchers
             Re: heavy launchers
      looking for informations about man-made biospheres
               _Analog_ article
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
               Be Nice to Junkies Week
      Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)
         Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
               Re: more 747 drop tests?
        citizens in space -- Final Frontier runs poll
     Michaud's REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER (Pro-Space Groups).
          Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 May 89 12:55:52 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (sealion) writes:
>>are there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility?
>
>Yes.  NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
                                                 ^^^^^^
Love your choice of words :-).

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

Date: 14 May 89 10:50:55 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo![e-mail]  (Dr. Dereference)
Subject: Re: heavy launchers

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
>>We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
>>built rocket that was thrown away after every use...
>
>This is a fairly circular statement.  The Saturn V was expensive, hand-built,
>and non-recoverable because of the decision in the mid-60s to throw it away!
>When Congress capped Saturn V production at 15, (a) all hopes of reducing
>cost through volume went away, (b) it was no longer worth mechanizing the
>production process as had been planned, and (c) all work on making Saturn V
>stages recoverable stopped because it would never be done.
>
>Blaming the NASA of the 70s for throwing away the Saturn V is pretty much
>a mistake.  The real culprit is the Congress of the 60s.

It's hardly surprising that congress refused to guarantee long term funding
for the Saturn program, few if any large procurment contracts are or have
been long term. If the "experts" would have told congress to stick with the
Saturn V post Apollo, congress most likely would have funded more of them.
Although probably with another expensive, short term, and low volume contract.

The Saturn V was fairly expensive and a lot of people thought changing to a
fully reusable (that was the original plan) vehicle would save money over
the long run. As things worked out these people were tragically wrong, and
the US space program has been severely damaged for the last 15 years. I
think the major principle NASA violated in deciding to build the shuttle was
developing brand new technology when developing existing technology would
have worked very well.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

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

Date: 14 May 89 22:55:23 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: heavy launchers

In article <[e-mail]>, jmckerna@polyslo (Dr. Dereference) writes:
>It's hardly surprising that congress refused to guarantee long term funding
>for the Saturn program, few if any large procurment contracts are or have
>been long term. If the "experts" would have told congress to stick with the
>Saturn V post Apollo, congress most likely would have funded more of them.
>Although probably with another expensive, short term, and low volume contract.

Then as now, while members of Congress raise some objections to
proposals from NASA, they usually deviate little from the advice of the
"experts."  The record of NASA in providing the appropriate leadership
is so poor, there is a clear need for an alternative source of
information, ideas, and proposals--a need for space activists.

How many readers consider themselves space activists?  How many have
debated the question of what constitutes a rational space program?  No
one bothered to reply to my question about the appropriate role of
private industry in a space program.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: 12 May 89 17:43:20 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!ztivax!tumuc!lan![e-mail]  (Wolfgang Ocker)
Subject: looking for informations about man-made biospheres


hello net!

i am urgently looking for every kind of information about man-made(artificial?)
biospheres. with biospheres, i mean "small" self-supporting biological
systems for missions in space, sea and other environments.
addresses of companies researching in biospheres or titles of books
are also very welcome ! :-)

please respond via e-mail.

thanx alot for your help in advance!
claus duerr

ps: i am using this account with the permission of my friend.
    answers will be forwarded to me.


--
  |  Wolfgang Ocker          |  [e-mail]  |
  |  Lochhauserstr. 35a      |      pyramid!tmpmbx!recco!weo (home)      |
  |  D-8039 Puchheim         |     Technische Universitaet Muenchen      |
  |  Voice: [phone]  |          Huh, What? Where am I?           |

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

Date: Sun, 14 May 89 11:27:36 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: _Analog_ article

There's an interesting article on the economics of space settlement in the
May _Analog_.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 13 May 89 06:39:25 GMT
From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>> Boeing will
>> *not* start full development of a new airliner purely on speculation; it
>> wants to see contractually-committed customers first.
>
>I wasn't aware of this.  Does this mean that the 7J7, which is currently
>under development (or has it gotten to flight tests?) already has some
>committed customers?  This seems unlikely, given the recent rush by the
>airlines to order current models.

I think your info is a bit out of date.  The 7J7 is nowhere near flight
tests, has never entered full-scale development, and is currently firmly
on the back shelf due to limited demand for it and soaring demand for
current models and derivatives thereof.  The fall in oil prices pretty
much killed the 7J7 for now.  Ask McDonnell Douglas why it still hasn't
officially launched the propfan MD-90; same answer.

It's very rare for an airline manufacturer to launch a new model without
"launch customers" (e.g., the large order from Pan Am [I think it was]
that launched the 747).  It's been done -- the BAe 146, I think -- but not
often.  I don't think Boeing has ever done it.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail]
Date: Sun, 14 May 89 13:31:20 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash![e-mail]
Subject: Be Nice to Junkies Week

Jon Leech writes:
>    Backing away from this particular flamefast a bit: many space
>activists have strong convictions on the Way to get things moving
>again, which involve far-reaching and highly unlikely changes in NASA
>such as "get them out of the space transportation business." I feel
>it would be more effective to try and gradually move the agency
>towards a research agenda than to attempt a complete upset, because
>there is a larger chance of gradual changes happening.

One of the best ways to move NASA toward a research agenda is to
remove their temptation to pour the vast bulk of their money into
space transportation (and other "infrastructure").  All this
"prepatory work for the day when everything will happen at once"
is an old story.  As an engineering manager who still works as an
engineer, I recognize that line as one given by people who aren't
doing work.  At some point you have to tighten the screws, insist
on a schedule of results and if those results aren't met, terminate.

NASA is a junkie.  If you want it to get a job and be productive, you
have to fight its addiction as well as showing it where the work is.

(PS:  I do turn development projects around with this philosophy.
      I also turn careers around with it.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: [phone]
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 May 89 06:46:47 GMT
From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rendezvous with Rama (was Re: Re: Asteroid Encounter)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>It would be interesting to know how far an earth based radar can reach with
>the accuracy to detect killer rocks?

For radars of practical size with practical power output, the range is
zero on an astronomical scale.  The trouble is that radar return is an
inverse *fourth power* function of distance, since the inverse-square law
gets you once in each direction.  And you thought inverse square was bad...
Arecibo, with the biggest dish on Earth (not even vaguely steerable) and
a monstrously powerful custom-built transmitter, can get useful radar
echos from *planets*... but it's not easy.  The biggest conventional
radars on Earth have trouble tracking inert objects out at Clarke-orbit
distances, one-tenth of the way to the Moon.  For a 100m rock at
planetary distances, forget it.  Optical tracking is much better -- it's
only inverse-square, since the Sun supplies the illumination.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 May 89 04:41:11 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Daffinger) writes:
>Just a silly question...  How much different is the orbit of LDEF to that
>which the shuttle took to launch Magellan?  Would it have been possible
>to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan?

I doubt it.  Magellan had to go into a very specific orbit; it would be
remarkable luck if it were similar to LDEF's.  Also, I suspect the IUS
cradle needed to carry Magellan up probably obstructs the payload bay
enough to interfere with retrieving LDEF (which fills most of the bay).
--
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 May 89 06:48:40 GMT
From: jtsv16!geac!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes:
>Why should NASA take the time and expense to drop the Enterprise when it can
>do the tests with an actule mission thats already paid for?

More tests sooner, plus the ability to run tests in varying conditions
without increasing the risk of losing a nearly-irreplaceable real orbiter.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 May 89 04:31:43 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: citizens in space -- Final Frontier runs poll

The latest issue of Final Frontier [a magazine I think pretty well of,
and am thinking more highly of by the month] has a feature section on
"space tourism", including the following in a sidebar:

    Should NASA Resume Its Program To Take Ordinary Citizens On
    The Space Shuttle?

    Last January, NASA announced that its Spaceflight Participant
    Program was on indefinite hold.  Although the space agency is
    committed to the "long-term goal" of taking non-professionals
    up on the shuttle, flight opportunities for a Teacher-in-Space
    and Journalist-in-Space are not available at this time, and it
    could be many years before other "civilian" passengers are
    allowed to ride on the shuttle.

    Is that too long to wait?  We're interested in knowing your
    opinion.  Call 1-900-786-3663 and tell us what you think!
    $1.25 per call, flat rate, touch-tone phones only.  Callers...
    will be asked by former astronaut Buzz Aldrin for a yes/no
    response to the single question:  "Should NASA resume its
    program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"

    We'd also like your written answers to the following short survey
    on space tourism.  Send them to "Survey, PO Box 11519, Washington
    DC 20008".

    ...the results from both the survey and the phone-in question
    [will be presented] to NASA, the National Space Council,
    congressional space committees, and other interested parties.

    1. Should a commercial, passenger-carrying "tourist module" be
    allowed to go into orbit in the cargo bay of the space shuttle,
    provided it pays for itself?

    2. Would you go on a tourist trip to Earth orbit?

    3. If so, how much would you be willing to pay?

    4. What would you see as the main attraction of a short trip
    into space?

    5. What would you consider an acceptable level of risk for you
    to go into space, on a scale of 1 to 5?  (1 = as risky as airplane
    travel, 5 = as risky as armed combat)

Note that they want written answers to go to that post-office box; posting
them to the net is pointless.  Note also that I have nothing to do with FF
and can't forward answers or respond to inquiries; the above is pretty
much everything the issue says about the matter.
--
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 May 89 16:43:45 GMT
From: renoir.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Michaud's REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER (Pro-Space Groups).


         A book I highly recommend to those of you who want to join and/or
    form various space groups and need some background information on
    doing so can obtain this help from Michael A. G. Michaud's 1986 book,
    REACHING FOR THE HIGH FRONTIER: THE AMERICAN PRO-SPACE MOVEMENT,
    1972-84, by Praeger Publishers, 521 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10175
    (a division of Greenwood Press, Inc.), ISBN 0-275-92150-6 (paperback),
    $17.95.  436 pages.

         Michaud's book not only gives an excellent history of the
    development of U.S. (and British) space groups over the past decades,
    but also lists addresses of major space groups and has an excellent
    bibliography.  The most interesting fact is that whenever NASA activity
    goes on the wane, pro-space group activities increase.

         Larry Klaes

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

Date: 14 May 89 15:49:42 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
}>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????
}We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
}built rocket that was thrown away after every use. The idea of a reusable
}rocket is really very sound in theory, although it turns out to be a bit
}difficult to execute (especially by a government bureaucracy). With 20/20
}hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was
}probably the way to go.

Compared to the Shuttle, the Saturn *is* a BDB....  And, as has been discussed
many times before, there was a lot of politics involved in making sure that
the Saturn V would never fly again, even before the Shuttle was complete.
Why, oh why do we have to throw away proven hardware before the new technology
proves itself (or is even available, for that matter)?  The Soviets are still
launching many of their payloads on the same boosters they had 25 years ago,
and doing so in rain, freezing weather, snow storms, etc.  When you've used the
same launcher over a thousand times, you have a pretty good idea how it will
behave....

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
            Disclaimer? I claimed something?
   Intelligence is when you spot a flaw in your boss's reasoning.  Wisdom is
   when you refrain from pointing it out.  --James Dent

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #440
*******************