Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_468.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gc6EjmO00WBwM6Y05H>;
          Sat, 27 Apr 91 01:28:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 01:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #468

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 468

Today's Topics:
                Re: Incentives
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
              tabloids and moon landings
           Re: NASA & Executive Branch - new words
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
     Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...
            Re: tabloids and moon landings
            Re: tabloids and moon landings
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
          Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18
              regarding the last message
                Re: Incentives
             Re: Saturn V vs. ALS

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 14:03:20 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Incentives

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Ricci - CATS) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
> >
> >If Congress were interested in developing a lot of private
> >experience for a private buisnesses in space exploration
> >and development of space resources, I heard somewhere
> >something like what I propose.
> >
> >Congress should allocate (through lotteries, appropriations,
> >etc) a large cash prize on the order of
> >US$100,000,000 for the first person/organization to
> >go to the moon and spend an amount of time on the surface.
> >
> >Any comments as to how to make this work?
>
> You can't be serious!  There is no way that this taxpayer approves of
> $100,000,000 being given to any person/organization for going to
> the moon or Pluto for that matter.

It is a prize for the first one to get there.  There would be a lot
of prestige for the first one there ('free' PR), and it would
encourage a lot of private space exploration and move us into
a spacefaring nation!

Also, it only costs each person less than 50 cents.

>
> I don't think we need to give the boneheads in Washington any new ideas
> on wasting money.  They already do enough damage.

They have screwed up a lot in the past, but they have also done a lot
of good compared to many nations and comared to no nations but themselves.

I don't know what your personal experiences are with this government but
who do they damage by 'wasting' money this way?

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 15:39:59 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>... However, I feel the ALS should NOT
>be a gadget-mobile, but an exercise in cheap launchers...

They're aiming to do both, as well as a bunch of other things too.
Guess which gene will be dominant? :-(
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 17:25:32 GMT
From: agate!stanford.edu!msi.umn.edu!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:

>> No. cost estimates range from $1,000/lb to $2200/lb. This compares with
>> $3900/lb for a Commercial Titan.

>The only problem I have with those figures, is that you have to buy the
>whole space, not just a section (well, if more than one satellite ...)

Commercial Titan usually launches two satellites at a time. A recent
SDIO Commercial Delta launched two payloads.

It makes it harder but not impossible.

  Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 18:11:47 GMT
From: att!cbfsb!cbnewsc![e-mail]  (k.c.archie)
Subject: tabloids and moon landings

A while back the Weekly World News published an article on how
NASA faked the moon landings. It included the usual stories
about the Arizona or New Mexico deserts and even had a picture showing
astronauts in suits with metal scaffolding in the background.
Obviously a training exercise, but that wouldn't be as good a story.

I am not looking for proof of the landings as I few the WWN as
an extended funny pages. But it asked the question, 'Why didn't
the astronauts take along some reflecting material to signal us back
on Earth?' The answer is, of course, that they did. They left several
laser reflectors on the surface and I recall seeing telescope
images on TV showing the reflected beam.

What I want to know is how would I go about duplicating this today.
I assume the mirrors still work. Could this be done with cheap equipment?
Or is a large laser and/or telescope needed?
Thanks,
**kent
Kent Archie [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 13:34:43 GMT
From: abvax!iccgcc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: NASA & Executive Branch - new words

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
> two) rather limited paradigns (to Thomas Kuhn if he's reading this:
> Hi! and Thank you for such a wonderful word!)...
>
Doubtless your thanks are sincere and appropriate, but some of us
had the word "paradigm" before he wrote his book about the way
ideas penetrate the professional population.

dan herrick
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 14:59:21 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!news.cs.indiana.edu!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:

>Actually, I understand that [for Saturn] $4000/lb is more on line with costs.

No. cost estimates range from $1,000/lb to $2200/lb. This compares with
$3900/lb for a Commercial Titan.

>THe $2000/lb figure wasn't meant as an estimate, I used it previously
>to say "if the Saturn V or any big launcher had a 'good' cost -
>$2000/lb for 250,000 lbs, you are talking $500MILLION per payload!"

Yes the market is a problem. However, each Shuttle flight costs between
$673 million and $1.8 billion (depending on how you include development
costs). At $500M a payload we could launch it eight times a year by scrapping
the Shuttle and still save $1.3 billion per year.

>Too d*mn expensive, even for something like Hubble! ($1 bil?)

Of course, but dirt cheap for a space station.

  Allen

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 15:28:12 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...

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

>[most of an excellent and well thought out but unfortunately
>not totally right post deleted ]
>Your points are very valid. It all comes down to the size of the market
>and now it just isn't big enough. However, many times in the past large
>markets have emerged from wise investment by the government on
>infrastructure.

1. If there's no market for the smaller launchers, will there be a
market for the larger ones?

2. I believe that on-orbit assembly will be much easier than you seem
to believe.

3. It makes more sense to do the R and D on a small scale than on a
large one BUT this does not mean I am proposing that the small
vehicles should be much more experimental than the large ones. I think
there should be small experimental vehicles, but only as an adjunct.
Whatever gets built, the first couple are going to be at least
slightly experimental in nature.

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to
change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing
about the old one."

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 18:51:25 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: tabloids and moon landings

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (k.c.archie) writes:
>I assume the mirrors still work. Could this be done with cheap equipment?
>Or is a large laser and/or telescope needed?

The retroreflectors are still there, but you need a large telescope, a
powerful laser, and very sensitive detectors.  Any images seen on TV
were either synthesized images or one-way trips (some of the Surveyor
landers got pics of laser beams pointed at them, and the same might
have been done with the Apollo TV cameras, although I don't recall it).
The people using the retroreflectors for precise lunar distance
measurements typically get one or two photons back per laser pulse.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 20:22:53 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: tabloids and moon landings

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (k.c.archie) writes:
>A while back the Weekly World News published an article on how
>NASA faked the moon landings. It included the usual stories
>about the Arizona or New Mexico deserts and even had a picture showing
>astronauts in suits with metal scaffolding in the background.
>Obviously a training exercise, but that wouldn't be as good a story.

 But did it have sidebars and graphs? You can't believe a WWN article
about NASA unless it includes sidebars and graphs. (-:
--
 Jim Kasprzak          [e-mail] (internet)
 RPI, Troy, NY         [e-mail]
 "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission."  -Rush

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 15:53:19 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>
> >Actually, I understand that [for Saturn] $4000/lb is more on line with costs.
>
> No. cost estimates range from $1,000/lb to $2200/lb. This compares with
> $3900/lb for a Commercial Titan.

The only problem I have with those figures, is that you have to buy the
whole space, not just a section (well, if more than one satellite ...)

>
> >THe $2000/lb figure wasn't meant as an estimate, I used it previously
> >to say "if the Saturn V or any big launcher had a 'good' cost -
> >$2000/lb for 250,000 lbs, you are talking $500MILLION per payload!"
>
> Yes the market is a problem. However, each Shuttle flight costs between
> $673 million and $1.8 billion (depending on how you include development
> costs). At $500M a payload we could launch it eight times a year by scrapping
> the Shuttle and still save $1.3 billion per year.

Agreed.  Maybe put *that* savings into new super cheap launchers?
($500/lb?)

>
> >Too d*mn expensive, even for something like Hubble! ($1 bil?)
>
> Of course, but dirt cheap for a space station.
>

I wouldn't think so if each section would cost $500 million to launch!
Yikes!  I'd rather put 25% of that money (of all the launches) into
cheaper boosters that cut the cost in third!

Dirt cheap? No, but cheaper than the shuttle? obviously!


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 17:00:01 GMT
From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>In my opinion, NASA was faced with the undesireable choice of continuing the
>>Saturn 5 or developing the Shuttle.  I think NASA made the right decision.
>
> Why?

Budget, NASA just did not have enough money to do both.  The congressional
budget had been cut back too much.  Thats why JSC, MSFC, and KSC all have
flight article Saturn V's sitting as displays at rocket parks.  It is a just a
bit ironic to drive past a man rated flight article moon rocket every morning
on the way to my office.

--

Mike Kent -      Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
        2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 [phone]
        [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 17:01:22 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Moses M. Gallegos)
Subject: regarding the last message


send it to u108896@beta

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 17:24:15 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!think.com!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax![e-mail]  (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Subject: Re: Incentives

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>
>If Congress were interested in developing a lot of private
>experience for a private buisnesses in space exploration
>and development of space resources, I heard somewhere
>something like what I propose.
>
>Congress should allocate (through lotteries, appropriations,
>etc) a large cash prize on the order of
>US$100,000,000 for the first person/organization to
>go to the moon and spend an amount of time on the surface.
>
>Any comments as to how to make this work?

You can't be serious!  There is no way that this taxpayer approves of
$100,000,000 being given to any person/organization for going to
the moon or Pluto for that matter.

I don't think we need to give the boneheads in Washington any new ideas
on wasting money.  They already do enough damage.
--
=============================================================================
  Mark Ricci - CATS              | "I don't think so! Homey don't play dat."
  Commodore Applications and     |
  Technical Support              |    - Homey the Clown
  [e-mail]     |         In Living Color
==============================================================================

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 15:35:03 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V vs. ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>Not at all. If someone thinks a market is possible, they will invest in
>the infrastructure....

Oh really?  Who?  Especially in the US, where the Next Quarter's Bottom Line
is God?  People invest because they are *sure* there is a market, not because
they think there might be one or they think one might develop eventually.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #468
*******************