Message-ID: <AYGOhoy00UkZQ3Y04w@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 89 05:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #374

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 374

Today's Topics:
			 Heat sinks in space
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
	     Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
		      Re: long ago and far away
	    Re: Soviets will suspend manned space program
			      Re: Ariane
	     Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program
	      Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 89 14:26:51 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Heat sinks in space


>From: pacbell!pbhya!whh@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Wilson Heydt)
>In article <1989Apr8.212905.131@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> In article <10346@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
>> >... The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
>> >the engine design...
>> 
>> Not as much as you think.  Getting the heat out to that heatsink is
>> *not* a trivial problem.  The shuttle uses the entire inner surface of
>> its payload-bay doors as a heat radiator.  
>As I recall--and I'm sure I'll get some fairly hot replies if I'm wrong--
>that the rate of radiation of energy varies as the 4th power of the 
>absolute temperature.  Since the Shuttle is working a rather low temperatures,
>it's no surprise that it needs a large surface. 

Remember that the shuttle bay is normally pointed at the Earth. Thus it does
not usually take advantage of the 3K heat sink available.

Also remember that concentrating the waste heat to increase the rate of
radiation requires further energy expenditure and consequent heating, which
must be taken into account.

>From the CRC handbook:
  Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation. - The energy radiated in unit time by a
  black body is given by E = K * (T^4 - T0^4), where T is the absolute
  temperature of the body, T0 the absolute temperature of the surroundings,
  and K a constant.
                                     John Roberts
                                     roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

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

Date: 14 Apr 89 14:22:18 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <631@ftp.COM> jbvb@ftp.COM (James Van Bokkelen) writes:
>
>They may also be re-thinking many engineering issues in light of cold fusion.

I'm not so sure of this.  Considering that nobody (including the crowd here at
Georgia Tech (their neutron counter was faulty...they're rerunning the          experiment)) has 100% conclusively demonstrated nuclear fusion with breakeven
potential.  We still don't really have a solid theory, unless you count the
(still secret, patent pending) MIT claim.  Are the Soviets going to cut back
their current program just to pursue something that *may* pan out sometime
in the next 15 to 20 years?  I don't think so.  If there really is an across    the board cutback in the Soviet program, I still think the reason is economic.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 14 Apr 89 17:22:12 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: U.S. vs Soviets (was Re: Alien contact)

In <some article that causes the dreaded "%interp buffer overflow" from rn>,
    Henry Spencer writes:
>Turn it around:  what wondrous capabilities is Freedom expected to have
>that Mir doesn't?  Yes, it will be bigger... but Skylab was bigger yet
>(yes, last I heard Freedom's internal volume will be less than that of
>Skylab), and Novy Mir will probably take the record, given the size of
>launch vehicle its designers have available.

    It seems to me that a better indicator of capability is not
volume, but surface area. Skylab's huge internal spaces weren't very
productive - the hardware has to be attached somewhere. (Great for
recreation, though :-)

    Cutting radius of a cylinder in half decreases volume by x4, but
area by only x2. This seems like a good deal, as long as there's
enough room to work and move about in. It also makes modules easier to
launch.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``The tuba recital is one of the most memorable experiences of
      music school.''
	- Seen on a bulletin board in the UNC Music School

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

Date: 14 Apr 89 16:49:06 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <1989Apr14.045720.15637@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <Added.gYF=wUy00jZd06108j@andrew.cmu.edu> K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
> >  I just heard that the CCCP is not putting up manned missions for a while
> >(anyone heard how long?).   Maybe all the discussion of how much the ...

>  ... To make anything deep and significant
> out of this, you basically need to assume that the Soviet space program
> is run in the same chuckleheaded what-shall-we-do-in-space-today fashion
> as the US space program (and indeed, most programs of any kind that are 
> funded on a year-to-year basis by democratic governments).  ...

Just to be really tangential, maybe "Glasnost, Perestroika, Democracia"
is leading them to the same kind of space program the US has. At a recent
Planetary Society seminar at Princeton (I want to publicly thank Eric
Tilenius for setting this up) James Burke, who is the technical editor for 
The Planetary Report and works at JPL, mentioned that the Soviet Space folk
are now having trouble getting multi-craft missions approved. Where they
used to send zillions of less-expensive probes, expecting to learn from
the failures of the first few, such as the Venera probes, they now build
just a few very expensive probes. They have still been getting approval
to send more than one probe on a mission (e.g., Phobos), but it is much
harder to get this approval now. (The US stopped this with the Surveyors,
I think.) The unmanned vs. manned debates are just as strong there as here 
(e.g., "unmanned" proponents criticism, at the Soviet Academy of Sciences, 
of the Buran shuttle program as expensive and capable of little science). 
Now there is speculation of cutbacks in their manned-space program. Sound
like familiar chuckleheadedness? Maybe we should write to Gorbachev 
suggesting the USSR doesn't have to follow the US model in everything.

Speaking of writing to political people, Rep. George R. Brown, Jr. of CA
was also at the seminar. He said at the end he was charged up by the sessions
and would go back to Washington with renewed vigor for the upcoming budget
fights. One problem is the lack of specific public support. Polls indicate
that 78% of the American public want a space program, but there are
virtually no pro-space lobbyists in Washington, and very little mail
from constituents. It's very easy for pro-space Congressmen to get worn
down by other groups. Harlan Smith was also at the session, and mentioned
just being in Washington talking to Congressmen about various science and
space issues. Many of them said he was the only scientist who they had
ever talked to about policy matters, and often he was followed by a group
of, for example, 50 farmers from Arkansas demanding some specific action.
Harrison Scmidt was also at Princeton, and mentioned the same apparent lack 
of specific support for various space-related issues when he was a Senator.
My point being, write letters to your congressmen; not rambling, incoherent
diatribes against the system, but clear, concise expressions of your
support for various specific space-related activities, policies, bills, ...
Or even against, if you feel that would best support our path to space.
Talk to your friends about it, teach kidlings about the benefits of space,
organize and support lobbying efforts which support your positions. A lot
of words pass over the net. Take some of the time you spend on net activities
to try to keep your congressmen informed about space. Support those actively
trying to boost the space program, and maybe the upcoming NASA budget fights
will not be devastating as is now likely.


-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee 
                 or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee

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

Date: 14 Apr 89 16:50:59 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <Added.gYF=wUy00jZd06108j@andrew.cmu.edu>, K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
> 
>   I just heard that the CCCP is not putting up manned missions for a while
> (anyone heard how long?).
> My theory is that they are conserving resources for upcoming grandiose
> missions... [possible Soviet plans here]

My pet theory is that they are slacking off a bit to let the US catch up.

It is hard to push an aggressive and expensive space program when people
have to wait in line to buy meat and bread, and even harder when the nearest
compitition is fairly far back (at least in the eyes of the public).

If you stop to look at it, the USSR has excelled in the production of
lift vehicals, but are not as far advanced in other areas such as remote 
control of these vehicales.  The US has been working in less flashy areas.
Both countries are now is a re-grouping phase, getting there tecnology and 
politics in line for further exploration.


-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

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

Date: 14 Apr 89 21:16:19 GMT
From: uflorida!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@g.ms.uky.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: long ago and far away

In article <6331@homxc.ATT.COM> brt@homxc.ATT.COM (B.REYTBLAT) writes:
>On april 12, 1981, STS-1 lifted off from pad 39-(A or B, Henry?).

Pad 39A.  Mission 51L was the first to use 39B.  (There was considerable
speculation about whether this might have been a factor in the disaster,
but that appears to be have fairly conclusively disproven.)
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 14 Apr 89 16:36:30 GMT
From: netsys!lamc!well!tneff@rutgers.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Soviets will suspend manned space program

If any reminder were needed that the space race is "over" or
at least unrecognizable, consider how it felt to hear about
these recent Soviet setbacks with FOBOS and MIR.  "Say it ain't
so!" was the emotion that hit me each time, and I don't think
I'm alone.  Especially with the stagnation of our own program, 
we need every space success we can get, be it Soviet, European
or whatever.
-- 
Tom Neff                  tneff@well.UUCP
                       or tneff@dasys1.UUCP

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

Date: 15 Apr 89 01:06:19 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Ariane

From article <8904141757.AA03101@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, by pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott):
> Anyone know where the Ariane rockets are manufactured, and how they get them
> to Kourou?

Mostly in Toulouse (France) I think; the solids are made in Italy. Some of the stages are flown in 
by special cargo Airbus, but the first stage at least goes by ocean barge, I believe.
Maybe someone can confirm this.

Jonathan McDowell.

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

Date: 14 Apr 89 17:03:05 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Soviet shutdown of manned space program

In article <1989Apr14.045720.15637@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>To make anything deep and significant
>out of this, you basically need to assume that the Soviet space program
>is run in the same chuckleheaded what-shall-we-do-in-space-today fashion
>as the US space program (and indeed, most programs of any kind that are
>funded on a year-to-year basis by democratic governments).  That's what
>it takes to justify an abrupt shutdown of a major ongoing program.

    This explains the remarkable success of Soviet 5-year plans in
agriculture and the like, I suppose.

    The Soviet space program is about the *only* large-scale activity
they do well, and it's at large (hidden) cost to their economy. I see
no reason to assume they will continue to be as vigorous in space as
has been the case over the last 15 years. They might, but Soviet
planners don't seem to be any more competent than ours (at best).

    Followups to talk.politics.soviet, please.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``There ain't hardly nothin' cuter nor a sleepin' baby tad
      lessen it's a pork chop'' - Churchy La Femme

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

Date: 14 Apr 89 19:42:07 GMT
From: sei!firth@PT.CS.CMU.EDU  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: UK astronaut to be launched by Soviets

In article <135@ixi.UUCP> clive@ixi.UUCP (Clive) writes:
>According to BBC Ceefax news this morning (Thursday), the UK's first
>astronaut will be launched by the Soviets in 1991.

In article <1019@esatst.yc.estec.nl> neil@esatst.UUCP (Neil Dixon) writes:
>1991, Thatcher's next election year. A cheap publicity stunt is
>obviously more important than any participation in Europe's own
>(albeit flawed) manned space program.

First, the venture has nothing to do with Mrs Thatcher, since it is
entirely privately financed.  The British government's depressing
lack of interest in space is at least consistent, and a tribute to
their predecessors who wanted to retrocede Canada to the French
because it was of no economic benefit.

Secondly, Britain doesn't have "election years".  The Prime Minister
can request a dissolution of Parliament at any time, and this is
customarily followed by a General Election.

Finally, what's this 'Europe' stuff?  There is only one working space
program in Europe; it's been working since 1957, and it is run from
Moscow.  The only way the EC bureaucrats will get men into space is
by building a 300km-high butter mountain under them.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #374
*******************