Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_1/V15NO124.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 05:00:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #124
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 19 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
                        ACRV/Soyuz P (2 msgs)
               ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers (3 msgs)
               Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and..
          Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and... (3 msgs)
        GEO coverage, aurorae (was Re: SPS fouling astronomy)
                           light pollution
                        Meteor Soaks Datona FL
                        Private space ventures
                       SPS and light pollution
         SPS feasibility and other space development (2 msgs)
                        SPS fouling astronomy
Whither a Lunar Base (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem) (2 msgs)

    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: 18 Aug 92 13:10:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> Allen W. Sherzer writes:
>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? If GD says "Ah Uncle Sam, we
>got you by the balls now!" then Uncle Sam replies: "Screw you, I'm taking
>my buisness to Martin Marrietta".
 I think you're stretching this one a little bit Allen. Theoretically
you're right, this is what should happen, however I've got money that
says it wouldn't work that way. Firstly MM would have to have a
viable alternative ready to roll, which means that the Govt. would
need to give them a share of the launch business in the first place.
This reduces the incentive per contractor. If the US govt. needs the
20 flights you say, then to ensure viable competition, the govt. could
only promise GD and MM 10 flights each. In addition, you can bet that
the management of GD would be savvy enough to try gentle seduction,
rather than blatant rape.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  voice/fax: [phone]

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 14:15:35 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? If GD says "Ah Uncle Sam, we
>>got you by the balls now!" then Uncle Sam replies: "Screw you, I'm taking
>>my buisness to Martin Marrietta".

> I think you're stretching this one a little bit Allen. Theoretically
>you're right, this is what should happen, however I've got money that
>says it wouldn't work that way.

I'll take that bet :-)

>Firstly MM would have to have a viable alternative ready to roll,

Which they will. Titan II or III for Soyuz and Titan V for HLV.

>which means that the Govt. would
>need to give them a share of the launch business in the first place.

Which I think would be a good idea.

>This reduces the incentive per contractor. If the US govt. needs the
>20 flights you say, then to ensure viable competition, the govt. could
>only promise GD and MM 10 flights each.

Not quite. Buying 20 flights will save you about $50M per flight but
I priced ALL my launches in quanity one. The government can split
all launches among the available vehicles for the price I give since
I don't include any quanity discounts in my estimated price.

>In addition, you can bet that
>the management of GD would be savvy enough to try gentle seduction,
>rather than blatant rape.

Just like any supplier of anything today does to get the best price.
However, you are greatly constrained when there is another supplier
all set to go.

There is a bit of a change here; launches will be kind of like PCs.
Launches will go from being specialized products (like PCs 10 years
ago) to commodity products (like PCs today).

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------248 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:51:11 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>The problem with this scenario is *the service isn't provided*. That
>can't be tolerated when there are crews up there. So the government
>*will* pay, and the contractor knows it.

Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? If GD says "Ah Uncle Sam, we
got you by the balls now!" then Uncle Sam replies: "Screw you, I'm taking
my buisness to Martin Marrietta".

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------248 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:24:30 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers

> The problem with this scenario is *the service isn't provided*.
That
> can't be tolerated when there are crews up there. So the government
> *will* pay, and the contractor knows it. When salaries in the CIS

>


Not true at all if it is indeed run under normal business contracting
practice. I spent nearly the entire decade of the '70's as a senior
systems design person in a company delivering large turnkey systems
to private and government agencies, from Bethesda Naval Hospital to
San Diego County to Johns Mansville. I had to insure every last spec
and deliverable was ticked off in my department (and I was the lead
programmer as well). When we were late, there was no extra money. But
we still had to work over time and deliver even if it meant losing
money. Every contract had clauses to deal with overruns, delays and
nonperformance. You can write liquidated damage clauses that will
make the bidder very, very honest. If they aren't, then by the time
the contract is closed out, you own THEM. (Or rather your companies
law firm does, because they are the ones who really make the bucks.
You haven't seen plush until you've been in the meeting room of a
major corporate law firm. Louis XIV would feel at home...)

There is nothing unusual or special about any of these sorts of
contract clauses. They're all biolerplate. Everyone uses them for
large procurements: often with even the same wording because they
come from the same standard reference books. (Or a because former
employees ripped it off when starting their own high tech company and
spread it in ever widening circles...)

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:02:56 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>The problem with this scenario is *the service isn't provided*. That
>>can't be tolerated when there are crews up there. So the government
>>*will* pay, and the contractor knows it.
>
>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? If GD says "Ah Uncle Sam, we
>got you by the balls now!" then Uncle Sam replies: "Screw you, I'm taking
>my buisness to Martin Marrietta".

Company #2 could not afford to develop the vehicle further. Go look at ATF. One
winner, one fighter. One winner, one launch system.


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:32:42 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and..

> As to the $65 million firm price for Soyuz, I've posted about this
> several times. That may be the price quoted *now*, but wage rates
> in the CIS simply can't stay at $12 a month as their economy
changes
>


I agree, but my conclusion is different. I say buy it quick while it
is still cheap. It's like knowing there is a sale due to a temporary
glut on the market but knowing the prices are going to be double or
triple next Christmas. Would that be a reason for not buying now and
buying as much as you can? Of course not.

As their price goes up, it will meet other prices coming down as
other launchers fight for survival.

What more central tenant is there to capitalism than "Buy cheap, sell
dear?"

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

Date: 18 Aug 1992 09:46:10 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Indeed. If we follow the plan of using Soyuz and HL Deltas, the Shuttle
>fleet is *gone*. That's Sherzer's plan anyway. With this plan 3/4 of the
>Shuttle fleet is available for other work than servicing Fred. Now if
>your plan includes operating the full Shuttle fleet in *addition*
>to Soyuz at the station, then *never mind*. Expensive though.

3/4 of the shuttle fleet will not be available for non-station duties.
Since the long duration flights screw up the shuttle  turnaround,
you only get about half the previously-available flights.  Is that
worth it?

>As to the $65 million firm price for Soyuz, I've posted about this
>several times. That may be the price quoted *now*, but wage rates
>in the CIS simply can't stay at $12 a month as their economy changes
>to a market based system. That's going to have a major impact on
>what their space hardware costs. I doubt that *they* have a good idea
>what their hardware costs *now* given the baroque accounting methods of
>the former Soviet Union, and certainly they can't predict what it
>will cost in ten years given the dramatic changes in their economy.

That's not $65 million for a Soyuz; that's $65 million for a Soyuz
and an Atlas.  Most of that was in the Atlas.  I'm presuming $15m
for the Soyuz at current market prices.  I would note that there's
a factor of three in that price for some inflation, just in case.

Let's look at what Soyuz prices might hit when the Russian economy
starts to improve and they pay their workers what they deserve...

The Russian group producing the Soyuz vehicles has about 2400 people
in-house and somewhat less (about 1/2 that) in outside subcontractors.
[These numbers are from memory with conversation with Art Bozlee,
Russian Space Industry analyst].  They have claimed the ability to
produce 15 vehicles a year with existing facilities & crew.  This translates
to rougly 3600/15 or 240 man-years per vehicle.  At current prices,
($12/month/worker) that's $35,000.  At $120 a month, $350,000.  At $1200
per month per worker that's still only $3.5 million.   Multiply by two
for materials and additional subcontracted parts.  Multiply by
two again to give them some in-factory profit.  Multiply by two _again_,
to cover profit in the US and overhead.  $28 million dollars.

Note that the price I was quoted is more than their current costs
by a large margin ($5 million per vehicle).  They're looking for
cash and know that even with that margin, they'll sell some if
anyone has a market.

Soyuz prices might well go up.  They won't likely go past (installed
on a US Vehicle, inclusive of integration exclusive of vehicle)
$30 million per Soyuz.  Even at $30 million, total vehicle cost
is only $80 million on an Atlas.  If the price stays low for
a while, we're looking at my quote of $65 million.

Satisfied?

-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug
++ copyright 1992 george william herbert. All rights reserved.  Permission   ++
++ granted for Usenet transmission/use and followup/reply articles/mail use  ++

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 10:57:00 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Indeed. If we follow the plan of using Soyuz and HL Deltas, the Shuttle
>fleet is *gone*.

OK, I have posted extensive numbers on the alternatives. Let's see some
numbers from you. What will the Shuttle do that will not only justify the huge
expense of keeping it but also pay for the opportunity cost of the cheaper
infrastructure?

I await your reply.

>With this plan 3/4 of the
>Shuttle fleet is available for other work than servicing Fred.

Shuttle flies about eight times a year (at least it has for the last
2 years and looks like it will do so this year). Since using Shuttle
as the ACRV will about half the number of flights there will be NO
non station shuttle flights.

Thus we will be spending $5 billion each and every year to resuply the
station. That's an interesting number since you could build the
Porche of ACRV's for that and could do ALL your tasks for 20% of that
figure.

>As to the $65 million firm price for Soyuz, I've posted about this
>several times.

1. That is about three times the price I have seen for a Soyuz. I am
assuming $100M per Atlas/Soyuz launch even though the actual cost will
likely be much closer to $75 million.

2. We are stuck with Soyuz anyway since we won't get an ACRV.

3. Lots can be done to mitigate this. We can sign long term contracts,
build in the US under licence, or a number of other alternatives.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------248 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:57:00 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Shuttle fixed cost is around $5 billion a year, but support for Fred
>after PMC will only occupy 1/4th the Shuttle fleet at any given time.

The Shuttle flies eight times a year and four of those are needed for
Fred resuply. Thus Fred uses 50% of Shuttle at an anual cost of $2.5
billion (1.5 times the cost of doing the same thing with expendables).

If we use Shuttle for ACRV then Fred uses 100% of Shuttle flights for
an anual cost of $5 billion. This is five times the cost of doing the
same thing with expendables.

>That makes the cost of Shuttle support of Fred $1.2 billion per year.

You have made a huge arithmatic error.

>Using Shuttle keeps 3/4 of the fleet available for missions
>*other* than Fred. With your plan, that capability is lost.

We have yet to see an economic justification for the minor additional
orbital capability which justifies the huge cost. When we do, we can
consider this position. Until then, this view cannot be considered
credible.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------248 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 13:58:13 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: GEO coverage, aurorae (was Re: SPS fouling astronomy)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>This is the reason the youthful Arthur C. Clarke recommended three
>geosynchronous comsats.  Two don't *quite* cover the world.
This topic was covered in the Mathematical Games column of
Scientific American recently--the satellite coverage problem
turned out to have many interesting spin-offs.
Richard. 8
     ^
        / \
       #   #
      --- ---
--
Richard Martin                   [e-mail]
Sorry, no NeXTmail. <sniff> :(
"Don't Panic Yet!  Things are about to get much worse!"

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

Date: 7 Aug 92 18:17:06 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: light pollution
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
Hi Gay,

 g> powersats will have to be built before we can even
 g> begin to think of building
 g> something 50 sq.km in size. The space power community
 g> now realizes that trying
 g> to design such a large thing before doing a lot of
 g> smaller powersats is purely
 g> ridiculous. Still, we hope that some day, we will be able to build large
 g> systems to keep Earth well supplied with power. Issues
 g> such as light pollution
 g> (which I believe is a very legitimate environmental concern), should be
 g> addressed early along with other environmental problems
 g> such as space debris,
 g> effects of power beaming and effects of launching.

 For what its worth I'll like to add my two cents worth.

 1) Perhaps the best near term bet would be to develop Space Power Relay
 capability rather then actual power production. A world wide
 electricity grid would open up new energy sources and make more
 efficiant use of current ones.

 2) Maybe we can take a leaf from current work on small LEO comsats.
 I have read that enough satellites orbiting in two belts at plus
 or minus 45 deg to the ecliptic at 2900 mile altidude can service
 any point on Earth.
 Perhaps instead of building huge single satellites, thousands of
 smaller units be used, maybe working together in clusters.
 Being closer to Earth, the transmitter can be smaller. I'm imagining
 something about 20 tonne mass that could deliver say, 5 megawatts
 power. Prototypes could be launched with current rocketry. Mass
 produced production models may be able to be launched by a Space gun.

 Comments from readers appreciated.
 ta
 Ralph

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 16:26:34 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL

> plunging to Earth. Meteors have impact velocities as high as 40
> miles per second. If the 1 meter meteor was iron, it's impact would
> release kinetic energy equivalent to a 65 kiloton nuclear
explosion.
> It's not like tossing a pebble into a pond.
>


Not true. Small bodies are travelling at not much over terminal
velocity when they strike. Have you ever touched the boulder sized
meteorite in the Smithsonian? It's probably more in the 2-3 meter
class, is just rock ... and is intact. It could HARDLY be sitting in
the Smithsonian after releasing several Hiroshimas of energy.

Or seen photos of the tall as a person one sitting in Africa (never
moved from the site where it was found). I think there is a photo of
this one in the recent Time/Life Space series volume on meteorites &
such.

A very fat woman was actually hit by a meteorite once. It came
through the roof and hit her. I saw the photo in a book on the
subject. Quite a large black and blue mark on quite a large woman.

They are also, interestingly enough, not hot when they land. The
heating is also superficial and the interiors are still at outer
space temperatures. Frost can form on them after striking as the cold
"leaks out".

I actually tend to doubt the reports of it causing a wave because I
don't think a 1M rock would raise much of a wave at all. Probably not
a lot more than dumping it out of an airplace a couple miles up.

Of course as the meteorites get large, the impact velocity increases
because the ratio of mass to cross sectional surface area increases
rapidly as the object gets larger: ie more energy needs dissapated in
the same amount of time and over a smaller area.

There have been postings about 1M rocks making 10M craters. I would
suggest you would get the same crater size by just dumping a chunk of
granite out the back of a Hercules cargo plane from FL350.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:49:51 GMT
From: William Naylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

A private company called "Astrotech" has been trying to get
into the space business (Astrotech is a public company; its stock
trades on the American stock exchange in the USA).

2 years ago they tried to convince NASA to sell them a space shuttle,
which they would finance by a public share offering.  NASA refused for
various reasons.


--
William Naylor                               | [e-mail]
Canon Information Systems Research Australia | Phone [phone]
PO Box 313 NORTH RYDE NSW 2113               | Fax   [phone]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 17:10:16 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS and light pollution
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
 to [e-mail] (R. Cage), via *IXgate 3:713/602

 w> Ground-based solar is available only during daylight, and has
 w> seriously reduced availability in the winter months at higher
 w> latitudes.  This requires long-distance transport or long-term
 w> energy storage, which would be real nice to have anyway; we
 w> don't.  SPS is there almost all the time, and its out-periods

 We don't have long-distance transport the same way we don't have
 a SPS system- no one has built one yet. There is a very serious scheme
  to build a world  wide power grid. Its proponents belive all
 the technology is already available. Superconductors would be nice, but
 not required.
 My sugestion is that the Space power people should look at this first.
 Microwave mirrors in Space could play a very important role in
 transcontinental electicity transmission.

 ta
 Ralph

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 12:51:27 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development
Newsgroups: sci.space

Listen, Dennis, a scientist's job is ask questions: and the harder they
are, and the more skeptical they are, the better they are. That's how
you get important results!

I am doing my job. What are you doing?

Uncritical acceptance of ideas, no matter how appealing they might
seem, is harmful to any field. Space is no exception. People will hold
you to promises you make, and will hold it against you if you tell
them things that aren't right. Undisciplined grand speculation isn't
even good science fiction. At best, boosterism (good pun intended) is
misleading; at worst, it makes you look kooky. Believe me, kooky is
NOT an image you want to project when writing a research proposal,
especially not when you get to the budget section!

If you can't provide me with even approximate literature references,
better than newspaper articles, especially when I repeatedly request
them, I wonder how much you read this stuff, or even whether the
references exist at all. I suppose I'll have to go back to doing my
own homework, and so much for the net as a research tool. Never mind
numbers accurate to the nth digit; I'd welcome numbers *reliable* to
the first digit. Also, I always get very suspicious about anything
I'm not allowed to ask questions about!

What is it about this field that so often elicits a quasi-religious
response? My fondest dream that still hasn't come true is to find some
way to fly to the stars and be back by Monday morning. But there are
good reasons to believe this might not be so easy (cf. Taylor and
Wheeler, Spacetime Physics; Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler, Gravitation,
although watch this book, it has lots of errors, and you really should
work everything out yourself). Until I have some even better reasons
to believe this might be feasible after all, I'll keep busy with
practical, mundane, unimaginative things such as outbursts around
neutron stars, bending waves in accretion disks, and stars erupting
before my very eyes (or instruments). I've certainly had enough of
THIS!

P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or may

not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes
faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of what
two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and others
are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it severely
strains the notion of causality...

P.P.S. Your new postings about reviving the Saturn are *much* more like
it. Not only is this of potential long-term interest, but there's
nothing like the immediate applicability of the rumble of a rocket
engine. With all the excitement lately, I'm almost scared to ask
another question, but ask I will: what are the F1A engines for? Why
revive the Saturn class? It makes no sense to develop capability for no
reason; the taxpayers won't like it. So, what are the reasons? More
interestingly, what are the payloads? SSF parts? Large comsats? Lunar
or planetary spacecraft?

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 13:02:45 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development
Newsgroups: sci.space

Listen, Dennis, a scientist's job is ask questions: and the harder they
are, and the more skeptical they are, the better they are. That's how
you get important results!

I am doing my job. What are you doing?

Uncritical acceptance of ideas, no matter how appealing they might
seem, is harmful to any field. Space is no exception. People will hold
you to promises you make, and will hold it against you if you tell
them things that aren't right. Undisciplined grand speculation isn't
even good science fiction. At best, boosterism (good pun intended) is
misleading; at worst, it makes you look kooky. Believe me, kooky is
NOT an image you want to project when writing a research proposal,
especially not when you get to the budget section!

If you can't provide me with even approximate literature references,
better than newspaper articles, especially when I repeatedly request
them, I wonder how much you read this stuff, or even whether the
references exist at all. I suppose I'll have to go back to doing my
own homework, and so much for the net as a research tool. Never mind
numbers accurate to the nth digit; I'd welcome numbers *reliable* to
the first digit. Also, I always get very suspicious about anything
I'm not allowed to ask questions about!

What is it about this field that so often elicits a quasi-religious
response? My fondest dream that still hasn't come true is to find some
way to fly to the stars and be back by Monday morning. But there are
good reasons to believe this might not be so easy (cf. Taylor and
Wheeler, Spacetime Physics; Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler, Gravitation,
although watch this book, it has lots of errors, and you really should
work everything out yourself). Until I have some even better reasons
to believe this might be feasible after all, I'll keep busy with
practical, mundane, unimaginative things such as outbursts around
neutron stars, bending waves in accretion disks, and stars erupting
before my very eyes (or instruments). I've certainly had enough of
THIS!

P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or
may not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes
faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of what
two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Hawking, Thorne,
and others are trying their hardest to find something wrong with it,
as it severely strains the notion of causality...

P.P.S. Your new postings about reviving the Saturn are *much* more like
it. Not only is this of potential long-term interest, but there's
nothing like the immediate applicability of the rumble of a rocket
engine. With all the excitement lately, I'm almost scared to ask
another question, but ask I will: what are the F1A engines for? Why
revive the Saturn class? It makes no sense to develop capability for no
reason; the taxpayers won't like it. So, what are the reasons? More
interestingly, what are the payloads? SSF parts? Large comsats? Lunar
or planetary spacecraft?

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 16:52:10 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS fouling astronomy
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <roelle.714081429@uars_mag>
roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:

> Are there really persons out there who believe a fair assessment of
> the physical universe can be made by restricting our view to the
> celestial cones around Earth's polar regions?

Hey, wait a minute. THIS wouldn't happen in any case. A full-up SPS
system would brighten the entire sky, largely due to scattered light in
the Earth's atmosphere. This would be seen by any observer on Earth,
except those above |82| degrees latitude, who would see a dark sky
(providing it's night, it's clear, and no aurora is around).

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 13:46:10 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whither a Lunar Base (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>P.S.  Richard, I note that you're posting from Canada.  When is YOUR
>country going to start a lunar base?
I *did* say WE.  One should note that Freedom is an international
space station.  Canada has a population of about 27 million.  As far
as resources go, Canada doesn't really _need_ to go to the moon in
the near future.  As to when we're going to start our base?
Canada contributed the Canadarm to the Space shuttle, and SPAR
is presently developing the inchworm manoeuvring device for Fred.
We also make unfolding antennae which don't unfold, but that's
another story... =)
To conclude my silly little ramble:  Canada contributes as Canada
can (alliteration!).  I think that any moon base will have to be
international, for financial, logistical, and political reasons.
Richard.
--
Richard Martin                   [e-mail]
Sorry, no NeXTmail. <sniff> :(
"Don't Panic Yet!  Things are about to get much worse!"

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 18:06:41 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whither a Lunar Base (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Martin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>P.S.  Richard, I note that you're posting from Canada.  When is YOUR
>>country going to start a lunar base?
>I *did* say WE.  One should note that Freedom is an international
>space station.  Canada has a population of about 27 million.  As far
>as resources go, Canada doesn't really _need_ to go to the moon in
>the near future.  As to when we're going to start our base?
>Canada contributed the Canadarm to the Space shuttle, and SPAR
>is presently developing the inchworm manoeuvring device for Fred.
>We also make unfolding antennae which don't unfold, but that's
>another story... =)
>To conclude my silly little ramble:  Canada contributes as Canada
>can (alliteration!).  I think that any moon base will have to be
>international, for financial, logistical, and political reasons.
>Richard.

SPAR is also baking bread in a GAS canister. Don't forget the contribution
fresh bread will make to a space station :-)

Maybe for enough maple syrup, we'll send Henry up to Freedom... of course, he
gets to test Shezer's Soyuz ACRV on the down link.


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 124
------------------------------