Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 21 Jun 1990 02:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Jun 1990 02:16:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #550 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 550 Today's Topics: Full Funding for NASA Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest Nitpick Schematics for Satellite decoder Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest Spacelab costs, pricing politics Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest Re: Making fresh vegetables on long-duration space travel (Forwarded) Radiation belt references (was Re: Radiation) Re: Public Perception Of Space Getting spaca exploration really going Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jun 90 15:04:37 GMT From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Gregory Fedor) Subject: Full Funding for NASA I received this via e-mail, but thought I'd reply to it here: >From @po5.andrew.cmu.edu:js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu Tue Jun 19 14:58:56 1990 >From: "Jon C. Slenk" >To: smfedor@lerc01.lerc.nasa.gov (Gregory Fedor) >Subject: Re: Full funding for NASA! > >I, for one, do not want my taxes going to anything other than the explicit >protection of my rights. I do *not* consider funding NASA (in general) to >be such: if NASA were purely military then I could justify it, but NASA is >also doing (and preventing) what should be *entirely* comercially done. > >-Jon. >(Donning Acme Flame-Proof Suit already...) > No flames...we are adults. I don't believe that the commercial sector is ready to undertake the full mission of NASA. Yes there are several areas that started out as NASA exclusives, but have matured enough that private industry can see profit in pursuing them (don't forget the country is based on capitalism). In my work here at Lewis (one third of NASA's research arm), I've heard several stories that state that private industry _wants_ NASA to do the basic research and initial testing, then turn the technology over to them for commercial development. The one instance that comes to mind is the recent work done on unducted fan engines. The work on that was started here at Lewis, was initially tested here at Lewis, and then _given_ to private industry to take a look at. Engine manufactures took the information and developed comercially viable engines. Why we don't see them is the flip side of the economics, they are good but not good enough to attract buisness. If you are willing to fund things for your *private protection* then I think that the work done by NASA should be right up there. Our future is in the hands of our children. Do we want them learning about advanced thinking from people who's purpose is military (don't get me wrong I don't oppose everything that the military has done), or do we want them to learn from an organization whose charter is to expand the knowledge of the human race. You might say that's a pie in the sky dream, that NASA has never been that, and never will be. On the first part I have to disagree, I am presently working at NASA because I grew up during NASA's hayday. My earliest memory is that of Apollo 9's liftoff. I was about 3 or 4 then. That had a dramatic impact on my life that has led me to where I am today, and is guiding me towards tommorow. If it can happen to me then it can certainly happen to our children. As for the second part, NASA could return to what it once was if the politics was removed. In the early days politicians didn't get in the way as much as they do today. We as a nation have to stop the political bullsh*t and start making progress. Private industry can do alot of things NASA can't, and for such things they should with the cooperation of NASA. NASA has it's faults (as does private industry) but it does alot of good things and shouldn't be chastized for them. Stop the politics and maybe we can get somewhere. -- Hailing frequencies closed... Gregory Fedor (216) 433-8468 Sverdrup Technology smfedor@lerc01.lerc.nasa.gov NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 90 02:52:15 GMT From: lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest Simmer down there, Vince! If the discussion is going to make sense, we have to start doing some numbers, and that means we have to start making some assumptions and modifying them. Nobody else was doing this, so I thought I would. I assumed you would be using Aerotech class N's because (1) I have data on only Aerotech motors, and (2) I figured you wanted the highest available mass ratio. The larger the diameter, the higher the mass ratio. The class N has a mass ratio of four. The engine you described has a mass ratio of 3.5. If you have smaller mass ratios, you are going to have to have more stages. More stages means bigger lower stages. There is a trade-off. (BTW the class N costs $1300, not $3000.) The business of upper stages weighing half of the current stage - that was pulled out of the air. There is an optimization problem here. Again, let's do NUMBERS. Show us a better configuration. I forget what a reasonable orbital velocity is - 4 mile/second? If that is true, then orbit can be achieved in 5 stages - or fewer if you can have a bigger engine made. Problem is, why send up only one ounce? How will you know it got anywhere? It will be like any other rocket that goes out of sight, only bigger and more expensive. This isn't a rhetorical question. As I say, I'm up for something, but a good thing deserves up front consideration. Lets do some. The group seems like a good forum. -Larry Curcio ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 23:29:50 EDT From: kfl@quake.LCS.MIT.EDU (Keith F. Lynch) Subject: Nitpick Cc: kfl@quake.LCS.MIT.EDU > A COMPARISON OF OPTICAL AND RADIO ASTRONOMY > ... the mid-point wavelength of the Radio window is about 0.5 meters. > ... the corresponding frequency is about six thousand MHz, or six > gigahertz (GHz). No. 0.5 meters is 600 MHz or 0.6 GHz. 6000 MHz is 0.05 meters. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 15:10 GMT From: "Joe Desbonnet, UCG Ireland." Subject: Schematics for Satellite decoder For those interested in receiving satellite pictures you'll find information on building your own decoder in Space Digest Volume 9 Issue 527. Joe. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 22:00:21 GMT From: sam.cs.cmu.edu!vac@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest I just talked with someone at Vulcan Systems Inc. He told me that their K500 weighs about 3.5 pounds with the fuel being 2.5 pounds of that. He said that the Isp was about 225. I asked if by paying more I could get lighter cases and he said, "Sure if it is large order". He could replace the 16 oz case with a 4.5 oz case. The 4.5 oz case was about $100. A 2.75 lb rocket with a 0.25 lb case would be far better than a 3.5 lb rocket with the same thrust, especially when used as an upper stage. The extra cost would be well worth it. I told him about wanting to send something into space and he said they were building a 60 inch rocket motor for somebody who was sending something into orbit. I was surprised and he said that they made stuff for the military and could make any size. I said, "So I could just order a "Q" and you would make it?" He said, "Sure." With very light cases we should be able to get about a 3,000 MPH delta-V from each stage (using an engine of half the size in each higher stage). Thus a total of 8 stages or so should do it. I AM SURE WE CAN SEND LITTLE ROCKETS INTO SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Vince ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 10:47:07 SET From: LMASSONN%ESOC.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu Comment: CROSSNET mail via MAILER@CMUCCVMA Subject: Spacelab costs, pricing politics Date: 20 June 1990, 10:38:29 SET From: Lutz Massonne +49 6151 886 701 LMASSONN at ESOC To: SPACE@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Subject: Spaclab costs, pricing politics If I recall the Spaclab affair correctly, also the European politics should be considered. The Spacelab project was financed with a big share from West Germany, which always tended towards close relations with NASA (as they still do, look at the bi-lateral ROSAT and Galileo missions). Concurrently, the French concentrated their financial support on Ariane development, where they paid the largest part. Looking backwards now, the French approach seems to have been the more prosperous one. The French Aerospace industry got much experience in lanucher technology which now is extended into the manned spaceflight technology (Hermes), whereas the West German industrial experience gained through Spacelab was never utilised, as Spacelab is considered more a "dead end" (because of its Shuttle reliance) and Ariane is the "European success story". Regards, Lutz +===================================+===============================+ | Lutz Massonne |This mail expresses my personal| | Robert-Bosch Str. 5 |opinions only and is in no way | | D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG |official or reliable. | +===================================+===============================+ ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 90 16:38:54 GMT From: convex!ewright@uunet.uu.net (Edward V. Wright) Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest mckiou@cbnewse.att.com (kevin.w.mckiou) writes: >Somebody want to volunteer to get the FAA clearance? :-) The FAA is not in charge of this. You need a license from the Dept. of Transporation's Office of Commercial Space Transporation. The regulations are very complex, you will need a lawyer, and the cost of the license will almost certainly exceed the $5000 budget for this project. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 90 13:25:42 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!unify!csusac!csuchico.edu!rreid@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ralph Reid) Subject: Re: Making fresh vegetables on long-duration space travel (Forwarded) In article <51702@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > . . . > . . . By applying commercial hydroponic (soil-less) growing >techniques, plant growth time from seed to harvest is much >quicker than for field-grown counterparts. > . . . I have heard that plant growth can be stimulated by changing the length of the day perceived by the plants by changing the length of time the plants are exposed to light. Will this technique be applied in this project? Does this technique stimulate the speed of vegetable and fruit production, or just leaf and stem growth? -- Ralph. ARS N6BNO rreid@cscihp.csuchico.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 12:38 CST From: William Higgins Subject: Radiation belt references (was Re: Radiation) Original_To: SPACE A bunch of you (Harold P. White, Henry Spencer, Marc Hairston, Alan Herbst, and Jon Bloom) were discussing radiation belts, and the consensus was that good references on the subject were scarce. In my browsing of the Fermilab library I recently came across this: High-Energy Radiation Background in Space (AIP Conference Proceedings 186) Edited by A.C. Rester, Jr. and J.I. Trombka American Institute of Physics, New York 1989 L.C. Catalog Card no. 89-083833 ISBN 0-88318-386-2 DOE CONF 8711149 This is a book of conference proceedings, but has a lot of review material with detailed looks at the Van Allen belts and other sources of radiation in space. I'll bet it could answer many of the questions you have about radiation, though it may not be as good as a textbook or survey for this purpose. Here are the major sections of the book: The Radiation Environment Particle Interactions and Propagation: Dynamic Modeling Data Bases Instrument Background and Dosimetry Detectors and Experimental Progress Biological Effects Future Needs and Strategies (this section has some papers on Space Station, Hubble, and ESA radiation considerations, and a good survey of the Mars Observer gamma-ray spectrometer) The meeting was the Conference on the High-Energy Radiation Background in Space (CHERBS) in November 1987 on Sanibel Island in Florida. Hmm... AIP has a Bitnet node, AIPPINET. Wonder if you could order the book that way? (-: Bill Higgins Engineer of Hijacked Train: "Is this a holdup?" Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Masked Gunman: Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET (Hesitates, looks at partner, looks at engineer again) SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS "It's a science experiment!" Internet: HIGGINS@FNALB.FNAL.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 13:03:08 GMT From: js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) Subject: Re: Public Perception Of Space Doug said that if private enterprises were the only ones to do the exploration, etc, things wouldn't get done too quickly (if at all), because of the pro- hibitive cost. I can agree with that viewpoint. There would have to be noticable benefits from such exploration, and they might be difficult to find, and thus the missions might be difficult to justify. I do not know if data on the outer solar system is something people would be willing to pay for if that was the only way they could get it. There are two possibilites: 1) Yes, they would. This needs no further discussion, as it backs up my point. 2) No, they wouldn't (at least not enough to fund missions). In this case, I belive that it is wrong for governments to step in and use their money to do what is *NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASABLE.* Note that it is not economically feasable BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T WILLING TO PAY FOR IT: that is the hypothesis of this potentiality. (I would allow the government to do some economically unfeasable things, but only if they directly relate to the protection of the governed's rights.) It bothers me when people reason it out like, "Well, we personally can't afford it. Neither can companies, as there are no profits, only losses, involved. So lets get the government to waste money on it, because they have plenty to spare." So. No matter how one may look at it, I still don't belive that the US government, not any other government, should be "Out There" for any reasons other than strictly military ones. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 15:08:34 GMT From: usc!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@ucsd.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Getting spaca exploration really going In article <00938712.17CF7760@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>, sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: > In article , js9b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. Slenk) writes: > > > >2) The real work of exploration, advancement and making use (ie: set up > >zero gee labs, do communications etc.) should be done by private > >companies. > > Exploration done privately? Um, I doubt IBM and GE are going to be sponsoring > the next set of probes to Saturn. There's no profit to be made, other than > to sell the photo rights to National Geographic and the Discovery Channel. > Of course, Disney blew $50 million plus on "Dick Tracy" but what do I know? > The last "shoestring" exploration was the Voyager probes; I believe both > came in for under $1 billion. > > Government, or private consortiums of governments (ESA) will always be > leading with the chin. Except for military developments, or explorations taken primarily for trade or military purposes, or for claiming territory, most research and exploration was undertaken by profit-seeking or charitable organizations until quite recently. I am including research by public universities funded through their monies in this, as those institutions were competing with private universities. Until very recently, there was no large optical telescope funded by the US government. They were all built from charitable donations. Virtually all of the research done in the US, except for some military research, and a small amount of agricultural research, was done without federal grants. The stifling effect of the major funding now being federal is being felt already. Maybe space is too big for individual philanthropists and institutions to finance. But there have been non-profit organizations sponsoring discovery funded largely by membership dues and such; the National Geographic Society comes to mind. But with millions of people believing in space, and industry willing to pay for R&D which can profit them, the job can be done. Let it be done! -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!cik(UUCP) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #550 *******************