Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO301.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 05:00:10
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #301
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
                 20 kHz Power Supplies "blowing up"!
            ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission (2 msgs)
                Delta Clipper (was Re: Fallen Angels)
                      Galileo Update - 03/10/93
                     Lunar Ice Transport (2 msgs)
                      My DCX .sig and DCX update
                        NASA and gold (5 msgs)
                      NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
                      plans, and absence thereof
                Road & Track road tests 1996 JPL Rocky
                              Starprobe
                      Winding trails from rocket

    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: 10 Mar 93 19:21:11 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: 20 kHz Power Supplies "blowing up"!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>
>>
>>I dare you to justify 3 things:
>>
>>    1)  20 KHz power developement.
>>
>

Oh, Dennis.  You are ruining my Fun.   I wanted to see McKissock
actually justify  these three questions.   He claims to be a
hotshot,  I want to hear the opinion from the inside.

>Since I started this and you have jumped on it like a bulldog I will answer
>you. The primary advantage of 20 khz is light weight and some ease of
>integration of the entire system in orbit. It has several disadvantages
>that were conclusively shown in 1988 and 1989. There never was a lot of money
>spent on the idea. It was a brainchild of the Lewis folks who were given the
>

How much weight savings  was achieved versus 400 Hz power?  How much was
the expected program cost of these components?
Why didn't anyone do the EMI/RFI studies on paper before even brassboarding?

>You are the one pat that is always pushing technology, but when someone
>does that then you get upset. And don't say that anyone that has common sense
>could see that 20khz would not work. It was a good idea to try even if it
>did lead to a dead end.
>
A sure i believe in psuhing technology developement  but in sensible
areas.  I hate to say this, but Ick, the shuttle seems to run fine
using 400 hz,  as does the entire us militaryt, and the aircraft industry.

And why not say common sense says 20Khz wont work.  it seemed stupid from
the moment i heard about it.

>>    2)  Non Metric (english)  component selection with the
>>    european modules being Metric.
>>
>
>So what. Read a Japanese technical manual. They quote everything in metric
>but if you do the conversions they are english standard. Who cares if
>the english system takes a little math to do the work. Metric is good
>but we have had the technology for conversions for a hundred years now and
>it is well understood.
>

Oh no  not this old chestnut again.
My complaint is not over the conversion of the numbers,  my complaint is
over the sparing problem.  Bolts,wrenches, measuring gear, etc....

>>    3)  Total failure to practice EVA until this year.
>>
>
>I guess you never saw many missions before Challenger. They blew it by going
>off the other end and being too conservative. Well with the Intelsat rescue
>that changed so what is your problem?
>

A little late, isn't it?

>Me thinks you like to complain too much
>
Dennis, I try to think of ten impossible complaints before breakfast
each day :-)

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

Date: 11 Mar 1993 00:09:44 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,sci.astro

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


>                      ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission

[...]

>          scenes.  [See especially the 2-7-80, 5-14-81, 5-21-81, 5-27-
>          82, and 10-14-82 back-issues of WISCONSIN REPORT newspaper,
>          P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, WI  53005.]

>               The Russians have spacecraft called "COSMOSPHERES",
>          which were originally built and used for "Star Wars" defense.

I remember seeing this almost a year ago.  It is the same exact article.
Someone posted that they wanted info on McEwaine to complain.  I lost
the address so I will post back.  Msg ID is of course in the attribution.
Note that there are two msg IDs in the "references" header, they are to
the same article, one in sci.space.shuttle, one in talk.politics.space.
But seriously, he has posted this article before.  hm, it might have
been last summer.  Before I had *this* account anyways.

Does anyone else remember this?  Contact the person who wanted info!

sheesh.  if there's anything worse than crackpot posts, it's gotta be
*recycled* crackpot posts.

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 00:52:31 GMT
From: "James H. Kiley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
|>
|>
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
|> writes:
|>
|>
|> >                      ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> >          scenes.  [See especially the 2-7-80, 5-14-81, 5-21-81, 5-27-
|> >          82, and 10-14-82 back-issues of WISCONSIN REPORT newspaper,
|> >          P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, WI  53005.]
|>
|> >               The Russians have spacecraft called "COSMOSPHERES",
|> >          which were originally built and used for "Star Wars" defense.
|>
|> Does anyone else remember this?  Contact the person who wanted info!
|>
|> sheesh.  if there's anything worse than crackpot posts, it's gotta be
|> *recycled* crackpot posts.

    Lots of McElwane (sp?)'s stuff comes out of Larsonomy, whose precepts
I recently saw printed out in stacks of huge, yellowed, ancient newsprint
all over our campus.  I wasn't sure what to think of it but most of it was dated
around WWII.  Somebody'd had it in their basement or something, and was
distributing it.  Weird, weird stuff. I think the guy needs to see a physician
of some kind.

Jim Kiley, Astronomer Wannabe

[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Mar 1993 02:34:31 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delta Clipper (was Re: Fallen Angels)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Keith Mancus) writes:

>  Actually, DC-X is the unmanned suborbital version and DC-Y is the
>manned orbital prototype.  The first commercial version would be called DC-1.

Assuming full funding for development throughout the project (a tall order I
know but let's pretend) will there ever be a DC-Z?  or is it left that way
in case problems with one or the other prototypes force a major enough
redesign to have a second prototype?

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: 11 Mar 1993 00:01 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/10/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE [phone]

                     GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                         March 10, 1993

     The Galileo spacecraft is 81 million kilometers (51 million
miles) from Earth, travelling in its orbit at 29.6 kilometers per
second or about 66,000 miles per hour.  It is headed out away
from the Sun (at almost a million miles per day), toward its
flyby of the asteroid Ida on August 28, 1993 and its arrival in
Jupiter orbit on December 7, 1995.

     The spacecraft health and performance continue to be
excellent, except that the high-gain antenna is still only partly
deployed.  It is transmitting telemetry at 1200 bits per second
over its low-gain antenna.

     Galileo's spin rate was increased to 10.5 rpm today to
demonstrate the high spin rate required for probe release (July
1995) and subsequent activities using the large, 400-newton
rocket engine.  The spin rate will be returned to 3.15 rpm on
Friday.

     Yesterday Galileo carried out a trajectory-correction
maneuver (about 2.1 meters per second or 4.7 mph) to target it
for the Ida encounter.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Walt Disney

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

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 22:14:01 GMT
From: Ross Borden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar Ice Transport
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ross  Borden) writes:
>>    To maintain high through-put, a continuous stream of vehicles
>>would haul ice from the polar ice mines to the equatorial processing
>>plants...
>
>Surely it's a whole lot simpler to put the processing plants at the
>poles too.  (For one thing, at the poles all they need is a tall tower
>to get continuous solar power.)

   Well, yes.  But I thought it was a given of the project that there was an
equatorial processing plant, and transporting the ice was the major hurdle.

>>And are there lunar maps with sufficient resolutions to chart a route?
>
>The lunar map situation is, roughly speaking, incredibly poor.  We have
>much better maps of Mars than of the Moon.  The situation should improve
>substantially with the Clementine 1 mission next year.

  Any idea what the resolution will be?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   I shot a man just to watch him die;     |      Ross Borden                 |
|   I'm going to Disneyland!                |      [e-mail]          |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 22:28:11 GMT
From: Ross Borden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar Ice Transport
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J DARRINGTON) writes:
>Ross  Borden ([e-mail]) wrote:
>:     In all the Lunar ice transportation proposals that I've seen,
>: nobody has mentioned what would be, on Earth, the most obvious: overland
>: hauling.
>:     To maintain high through-put, a continuous stream of vehicles
>: would haul ice from the polar ice mines to the equatorial processing
>: plants, and then dead-head back (unless there was some return cargo.)
>
>Sorry, but I must have missed out on the lead up to this thread - why do
>we want to put/move ice on the moon??????
>
>Bemused but fascinated.
>
>Jon.

    Some time ago an engineering student posted a request for ideas
to help him with a design project.  If I recall correctly, the assumption
was that ice deposits were discovered in permanent shadow at the moon's
pole and the ice needed to be shipped to an (already established?) base
at the equator for processing.
    As Henry pointed out in another post, it makes much more sense
to have everything at the pole with the mine, but that wasn't the
project.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    I shot a man just to watch him die;      |      Ross Borden               |
|    I'm going to Disneyland!                 |      [e-mail]        |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 11 Mar 93 02:18:50 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: My DCX .sig and DCX update
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>: The NRC recently visited the DCX hanger and came away very impressed...

>I missed an acronym.  The NRC?  Nuclear Regulatory Commission?  Surely not.

National Research Council

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------98 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 00:15:43 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Joyce Thompson) writes:
>
>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.

Gold-plated contacts do not degrade as readily as silver or copper plated
contacts when oxidized and are therefore more reliable in the long term.
The tendency for gold to retain its lustre in the face of weathering also
accounts for its popular use in jewelery.  (It's also quite malleable and
ductile, too.)

Hope this helps.

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: 11 Mar 93 03:03:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Hello,
>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.
>Thank you.
>Joyce
>[e-mail]

If I remember right the resistance of gold is inbetween that of silver and
copper.  The main reason gold is used in space is that it is very unreactive
with anything else. So you can flow current through it and it will not
react with adjoining parts.  This is also why all good quality connectors have
a thin gold plating for terrestrial work

This is scary when this question is posed by someone at NASA hq.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 11 Mar 1993 01:00 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dick Edgar) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Hello,
>>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
>>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.
>>Thank you.
>>Joyce
>
>It's extremely stable chemically, unlike silver and copper.  If you expose
>copper to the salt air in Florida (or New York, cf. the Statue of Liberty),
>it turns green, with who knows what effects on the mechanical and electrical
>properties.

Also, gold is an excellent reflector of sunlight.  For thermal control
reasons, you often see gold on the outside of spacecraft that have to go
within 1 AU of the Sun.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Walt Disney

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

Date: 10 Mar 93 16:43:57 +0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello,
Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.
Thank you.
Joyce
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 01:31:17 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] wrote:
: Hello,
: Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
: third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.
: Thank you.
: Joyce
: [e-mail]

Corrosion resistance is one reason.  Ductility of gold is good --
especially at the non-room-temperature environment in which most
spacecraft operate.  It also has good galvanic properties.  Gold has
excellent machinability (silver is almost as good, but it's harder at
most temperatures).  These things are evident in any good book on
material properties.  Gold connectors are used frequently in computer
applications where frequent component changes are anticipated because
gold-to-gold contacts wear better than copper.  I know a guy down at
JSC's machine shop (building 10) who is an expert on this subject.

As you know, Joyce, in most aerospace applications, the cost of the
paperwork far exceeds the materials costs, so it makes sense to use the
best material possible to reduce paperwork.  It's a strange business.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: 11 Mar 93 02:14:19 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edmund Hack) writes:

 >.... There have been a
 >number of classified programs working on SSTO over the past 12 years.
 >Two in particular called Science Dawn and Have Region produced detailed
 >designs and even prototype structures.

>Do you have a citation to articles on this in the open literature?

Not a citation but I do have some things. I'll see if I can post a
summary (provided I can get the damn gague I'm building to calibrate).

Another idea, If you would promise to write a summary I could mail
some stuff to you. Email me if your interested.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------98 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 11 Mar 1993 00:44 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: plans, and absence thereof
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes...
>JPL's Ron Baalke:
>The Grand Plan for exploring the solar system is a simple four step process:
>
>    1. Flyby
>    2. Orbiter
>    3. Unmanned Landing
>    4. Manned Landing
>
>I'll say this even stronger than Henry.  Step (4) is an utterly stupid
>end goal, suitable for only the most idiotic astronaut groupies.

>Two long term goals should be to develop _competitive industries_
>using both planets and planetoids, and an even longer term plan the
>settlement of same.

You make two statements here that seem to contradict each other.  You
say manned landings are utterly stupid, but then say settlements should
be one of our long term goals.  How do you do settlements on other
bodies without doing manned landings?

>Astronaut should be used if/when necessary,
>but should not be considered the central goal of the space program.
>Short term goals should remain scientific, with an eye on the
>long-term goals (eg prospecting).

I agree with you and there is nothing in the Grand Plan that contradicts
this.

>I'd extend this by pointing out that the Apollo-Amor asteroids and
>Jupiter-family comets are also major potential targets for initial large
>scale space development, and are even less explored than the Moon.  Mars
>unlike the Moon and major potential for self-sufficient settlements.
>In terms of near-term "pure" science, all these bodies are important
>in various ways, as are the gas giants.

Again, I agree with you.  I mentioned in a previous post that any
missions that give the most new science should have the higher priority.

>And I agree with Henry that steps 2 and 3 need more detail.  Most
>important for JPL, the priority of pure science vs. gathering
>knowledge for long-term space development ("prospecting") needs to
>be discussed and a consensus reached,

I agree.  First, what is the difference between pure science and
gathering knowledge?  How can you do one without doing the other?

>While exploration should be pursued in the context of long-term
>space development, we should not make the serious mistake of
>laying out a narrow long-term plan and following it.  We need
>to have many different long-term scenarios and visions and pursue
>space exploration on a broad front; the results of that exploration
>and future technology development will point out which areas of
>space are most fruitful to develop.

I agree with you yet again.  I would like to see a balanced
space program, both manned and unmanned missions.  I think your
preference is towards the asteroids, and there is nothing wrong
with that.  Henry's emphasis is more towards the Moon.  My preference
is more towards the balance across the entire solar system.

>It is utterly stupid to
>justify $100 billion astronaut missions for the sake of future $100
>billion missions, ad nauseum with little practical
>application or relevence to the rest of space industry, which for
>both military and commerce is automated.

In a previous post, I stated that the proposed manned mission to
Mars or the Moon are too expensive, and they aren't going to be done
unless the cost is reduced.  $100 billion astronaut mission are
unrealistic.

>Just as stupid as astronaut worship is this JPL "Grand Plan" which
>is a Grand Formula for getting more of its employees laid off in
>the future.  As long as the users and explorers and promoters of space
>are mostly hubristic jerks sitting in their own corner thinking
>their plans are all-important, and they don't need to work together
>with anybody else, and they don't need to adapt to new technologies
>and try to make their operations low-cost, we're going to continue
>to get these stupid unworkable pieces of crap called "Grand Plans".

Nick, I think there is a miscommunication here, because we are more
in agreement than you realize.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Walt Disney

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

Date: 10 Mar 93 22:32:24 GMT
From: Jim Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Road & Track road tests 1996 JPL Rocky
Newsgroups: sci.space

Oh, yeah, these road tests are great.

One year, they tested the KSC 995,231 which was the crawler used to take
Saturn V's and shuttles from the VAB to the pad.  The number was six digits
and was the total engine capacity, probably in cubic inches (the number
995,231 was made up here - I can't remember it).

Two memorable points about the review:  First, regarding the "time through
the slaom course" - they remarked that when the vehicle spans the width of
the course, it leaves you a bit of lattitude - they just drove it straight
over it.

Second, the comparison vehicles (probably from prior reviews) were a
locomotive and the Goodyear blimp!

Glad to see a sense of humor.

J

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. James Cook                                           Epoch Systems, Inc.
508-836-4711x385                                        8 Technology Drive
[e-mail]                                         Westboro, MA 01581
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 11 Mar 93 02:27:01 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Starprobe
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Del Cotter) writes:

><[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark D. Looper) writes:

>>It will
>>not take pictures of the sun, but rather will carry instruments to measure
>>fields and particles that can come behind the shield to be observed;

>My impression of Starprobe was that a camera would be positioned to take
>pictures of the Sun through a small hole in the apex of the cone.

From what I understand, there will be a small opening in the heatshield
and the camera will take pictures of the image projected through the hole
(much like we teach children how to view eclipses by poking a hole in the
paper and watching the shadow).

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 22:59:44 GMT
From: boyd johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Winding trails from rocket
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology

I'm new to these groups, so flame me easy if this is a FAQ.

I'm sure many of you in Southern California saw the rocket contrail from
Vandenberg Air Force Base last night (Tuesday) at sunset.  I have never
seen one as it is created, but have seen it many times some time after
it happens.

It always seems to resemble something like what you'd get if you took
the northern lights (aurora borealis) stretched them out, then let it
snap into a tangled mess.  The trail is nearly vertical near the earth,
but as it ascends it appears to go out of control.

Is it the wind currents that twists the contrail or does the rocket
follow a looping, circling route?  Also, it is always the same time of
day.  Is this the only time the contrails are visible from a distance,
or is it when the best atmospheric conditions exist for launch?
I am about 250 miles from VAFB, so I assume it is visible from
beyond the Mexican border to San Francisco or so.

Do those of you near Cape Canaveral or other places see similar sights?

--
====== Boyd Johnson   nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, California ======
    Intermittent newsfeed at best and only to selected groups.
    My opinions certainly don't match those of my employer.

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


    id AA06859; Thu, 11 Mar 93 03:47:34 EST
Received: from crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa22671; 11 Mar 93 3:42:45 EST
To: [e-mail]
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!aio!kjenks
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lunar Ice Transport
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Mar 93 01:08:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: aio.1993Mar11.010842.26395
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Lines: 40
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

Ross  Borden ([e-mail]) wrote:
:     In all the Lunar ice transportation proposals that I've seen,
: nobody has mentioned what would be, on Earth, the most obvious: overland
: hauling.
:     To maintain high through-put, a continuous stream of vehicles
: would haul ice from the polar ice mines to the equatorial processing
: plants, and then dead-head back (unless there was some return cargo.)

The extremely tenuous Lunar atmosphere offers another "overland hauling"
possibility: ballistic delivery.  Put a fast conveyor belt at one end,
and a large bucket at the other:


           ice on conveyor    ballistic ice

               i  i              -=i         \_
           ccccccccccccccc                     \___
          c  conveyor     c                     _  |   Intake to hopper
           ccccccccccccccc                    _/ | |
                                    ______   /   |i|
        ________________------------       --------------_____
                             lunar surface

This has the same effect as overland hauling, but eliminates the
vehicles, the dead-heading, and centrallizes the motive power source
and all of the moving parts in one location -- a definite plus from a
maintenance viewpoint.

Of course, you wouldn't want to stand too near the intake hopper.  Or
be downrange (or uprange) of the conveyor if the belt breaks.  But it
sure beats a fleet of Toyota diesels slogging back and forth.

(Oh yeah?  Who said they'd be from Detroit?  And what's wrong with
diesel, anyway?)

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "...back to the moon, back to the future,
      and, this time, back to stay." -- George Bush

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 301
------------------------------