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 ; Tue, 10 Jul 1990 02:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 10 Jul 1990 02:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #39 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Re: Light-ships Chinese Launch Vehicles Re: grim tidings for the future Re: grim tidings for the future Re: grim tidings for the future (wa [l/m 7/5] Reminders for Old Farts Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics Orbital Elements Bulletins Magellan imagery Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest Re: grim tidings for the future Re: grim tidings for the future 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: 10 Jul 90 03:17:05 GMT From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Light-ships In article BEW4568@TAMVENUS.BITNET writes: >I saw this afternoon on CNN that somebody has proposed using high-powered >lasers to propel ships (they said up to 5-man in size) into space... >My question is, how many times has this been proposed before? And why do >people keep proposing such silly "Popular Science" tripe year after year? Perhaps because they look like workable propulsion systems, and should be getting more attention, not less. Although this sounds like one of the slightly-ambitious "second-generation" proposals rather than something that is likely to be operational next year, if only because of the high laser power needed for something that big, the general laser-launcher concept looks more viable every time it gets looked at. Last I heard, laser and optics technology for launching small payloads to orbit were considered to be pretty well in hand, although it would cost quite a bit to actually construct the thing. -- NFS is a wonderful advance: a Unix | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-( | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 90 12:12:29 EDT From: Paul Shawcross Subject: Chinese Launch Vehicles >Anyone out there know the stats for Long March (payload to LEO, GTO, GSO, >etc.)? >--Glenn Serre >serre@tramp.colorado.edu This info is a couple years out of date, and I don't have the references anymore. But anyway, . . . Launcher payload orbit Long March 1 - 360kg 440km/70 deg 2 launches CZ1D (LM1 derivative) - 900kg 300km/70 deg offered Long March 2 (CZ2) - 1700kg 440km/70deg 16+ launches CZ2-4L - 9000kg LEO proposed CZ2-8L -13000kg LEO proposed Long March 3 (CZ3) - 1400kg GTO 3+ launches CZ3-4L - 3000kg GTO 1991 CZ3A (sometimes LM4) - 2250kg GTO 1992 CZ3A-4L - 5000kg GTO proposed Saturn 1 class -20000kg LEO late 90s The Long March 1 used liquid and solid fuels, the Long March 2 used liquid fuels, and the Long March 3 used cryogenic fuels (earlier than the USSR!). The program has only had one recorded failure, the third stage of the first CZ3, but a second CZ3 was launched successfully only 3 months later. Paul Shawcross pshawcro@nas.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 17:14:17 GMT From: usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!turnkey!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!todd@ucsd.edu (Todd Johnson) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <21900069@m.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: ; ;The NASA supporters, it seems to me, are providing additional evidence for ;this view. NASA's success's, some of which are amazing, are basically all ;_research successes. Not _development_ successes. The big development attempts ;(the Shuttle, the Space Station) have been (to be blunt) disasters. Let's ;get NASA out of the D, and back in the R. We'll all be better off then. I don't agree. I think that a success rate in excess of 96% is pretty good. That was the success rate of the shuttles up to and including Challenger. Since then, the success rate has gotten better. I consider going to the Moon a big development attempt and it certainly worked well. It would have worked better had it not been for certain Presidents and their penchant for wars in South-East Asia (I suspect I will have to remind you that there were supposed to be three more Lunar missions including a three week stay on the Moon). I fear that what is happening now is the culmination of the decline and fall of NASA as a functioning space exploration entity. The decline started with the lack of funding during the Vietnam War, the destruction of the triad of launch vehicles, DoD's (apparently aborted) attempts to ingest NASA (now apparently resurging as an attempt to replace NASA with LLNL and the geniuses who thought of a nuclear-powered cruise missile) and contiued Congressional budget hacking. The failure of the shuttle may be traced back to said budget hacking. The further demise of NASA will be from public outcry because NASA's space exploration efforts are not risk free. Does anyone remember the Roanoke colony? Was exploration ever risk free? Does anyone REALLY believe that LLNL has more expertise than NASA in space exploration? Or even the same amount of expertise? Does anyone remember the Navy's Vanguard rocket and how long it took to get to work? How many people know that Hubble, crippled as it is, is STILL capable of searching for planets around distant suns? (Read AW&ST) I don't think that NASA is incapable of big projects. I'm beginning to become convinced that the United States of America is incapable of handling the risks and re-developing the mindset required to support space exploration of any kind. It seems there is no pioneering spirit left in this country and we're going to give up space just like Portugal gave up the New World. -- todd@locus.com lcc!todd@seas.ucla.edu {uunet,ucla-se,elroy!turnkey}!lcc!todd ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 19:49:42 GMT From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <9007091800.AA10613@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes: >I encourage opinions from NASA employees with regards to their employer, >but please use your own time and equipment to originate the postings, not >NASA's. Nick, what makes NASA so special, that you don't complain about all the other postings originating on government-funded equipment? Next I suppose you'll threaten to write your Congresscritter about a violation of the Hatch act. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.'' - Stephen Hawking ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 90 18:55:00 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future (wa /* Written 10:04 am Jul 8, 1990 by KLUDGE@AGCB8.LARC.NASA.GOV in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ [ ...many interesting things NASA does ... ] And if NASA is so completely overfunded, then why are we still using *&$^%! Cyber machines in our flight simulators? /* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ Because the budget gets pissed away in inefficient, bloated development projects. I think that if you look at what most of the NASA-bashers are saying, you'd see that what they'd really like is for NASA to go back to doing the things you talk about, and get out of the trucking business. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 11:01:51 GMT From: amelia!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: [l/m 7/5] Reminders for Old Farts Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these. Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?] Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent. Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [1 mail message worth 100 posts.] Internet mail readers: send requests to add/drop to SPACE-REQUEST not SPACE. Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.] Cut down attributed articles. Summarize! Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works. Use absolute dates. Post in a timely way. Don't post what everyone will get on TV anyway. Some editors and window systems do character count line wrapping: please keep lines under 80 characters for those using ASCII terms (use ). ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 20:41:48 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker!ai-lab!life!kingdon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jim Kingdon) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Thanks to Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org for posting some (somewhat) concrete information about Long March pricing. I don't buy the results of his analysis, however. They are based on taking how much a U.S. company spends and trying to correct it for the differing labor costs and equipment available to the Chinese. This does *not* correct for things like rotating launch pads with hand cranks rather than fancy motors or dispensing with clean rooms. I guess if one had a list of such innovations one could try to price each of them, but this is all a matter of guesswork without actual budgets of what is costing what. However, the Chinese aren't releasing that. Whether this is likely to be (a) fear of what it would show vis-a-vis dumping, (b) realistic concerns about trade secrets, or (c) paranoia, I don't know. Does anyone know whether Ariannespace, the USSR, the US commercial launchers, etc release this kind of information? ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 22:11:31 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!rdd@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Oppose manned Mars exploration -- support robotics In article <1990Jul9.154152.1032@uoft02.utoledo.edu> fax0112@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: ...to every newsgroup except the one where it should have gone: sci.space. >In article <10516@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, davidra@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (David Rabson) writes: >Yes you are wrong. I know a large number who are for it. I am one, for >many reasons. There are pros and cons for both. You might be asking the >wrong people. Many scientist can indeed get much information from unmanned >exploration. But engineers, aeronauticals, planetary scientist might >prefer some manned missions (In addition, not instead of, unmanned missions.) In aviation, a rule of thumb is that 75% of a vehicle cost goes toward supporting the manned element. When we compare the cost and functionality of the various unmanned and manned missions, the facts would tend to indicate this is a bit on the low side. We can support at least four unmanned programs for every manned one. We can- not sustain a competent manned program in the current economic climate (barring private initiative); I would consider pursuing a grandiose manned program irresponsible, at best. Yes, it's easier to sell to Congress, and yes, it impresses the taxpayers, and yes, it gives the school-children some- thing to dream about, but we really should get our priorities straight. Are we going to denigrate the *functional* importance of space exploration, in favor of the *emotional* impact of manned programs? If so, we're never going to have a long-lasting presence in space: it'll always be a cash-cow. >> I would furthermore submit that even a third Viking probe, using early 1970's >> technology, could have greater scientific value than a manned mission with >> all the accompanying life-support diversions. > >Obviously, congress doesn't see it this way since they cut off additional >funds for that program. Only after its mission objectives were executed, and only after one of the landers greatly exceeded its design life expectancy. Don't twist the facts. >Computers are very smart, yes, but sometimes >(maybe not enough to justify it) you need personal interaction. Another non sequitur. This is not an "automation vs. humanity" debate. The issue is what we can accomplish with a given number of dollars. I strongly believe we can conduct important, productive research using, automation, robotics, and remote manipulation. And when it's *necessary* to switch to manned missions, we should do it that way. But the time ain't there, yet. --- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 23:03:43 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Perew) Subject: Orbital Elements Bulletins Why are separate entries listed for Mir, Krystall, Soyuz TM-9, etc.? Also, why are the orbital elements listed for them not identical? -- Mark Perew Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 90 06:15:25 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@ucsd.edu (Mark Perew) Subject: Magellan imagery This seems like a silly question to me, but I was asked to ask so here goes ... Will there be any imagery type files available of the Magellan data? A co-worker would like to get 3-D radar imagery or data files that he can convert to imagery of the Venus surface. TIA -- Mark Perew Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 18:17:34 GMT From: uccba!mead!rubin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Daniel Rubin) Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest I just started reading this newsgroup and it looks like I picked the right time. I haven't messed with model rockets in a long time but this Aim For The Moon thing sound like fun. In my opinion there would be alot of legal and safty reasons prohibiting the launching of a model rocket (more like I full fledged rocket) that would hit the moon, but.... what if the contest was more general like the name states. What if the object was to get a model to the moon any way you can. Think about using a balloon to raise a platform high enough to eliminate a lot of wind resistance and thereby reducing the amount of rocket power needed. You could even use model airplane engines to lift the rocket to the outer limits of the Earths atmosphere, have it drop off and light the rockets for propulsion for the rest of the long journey. The contest could actually be organized and the main event could be held on a particluar date. I think the only rule sould be you can not spend over $1000 to complete the task, this would make it very tough and only the crafty would be able to complete the task, also many people would be able to participate. This whole thing could be organized right from this newsgroup !!!!! - Dan Rubin ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 01:38:26 GMT From: monsoon.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <7315@timbuk.cray.com> gbt@sequoia.cray.com (Greg Titus) writes: > >Doesn't matter what they call it. They're all experimental. >By the time the entire shuttle program is ended, the SMEs will >still not have been run for as much aggregate time as the >engines on a Boeing 747 on a *single* New York to Tokyo round >trip. Experience with the things NASA flies was, is and will >remain for a long time very limited compared with what we know >about more mundane objects. While I agree in general, your example is in error... The engines run 8 minutes each in a flight, or 24 engine-minutes. With the testing that is run outside of flights, there are about three times as many off-flight engine hours as on-flight, or about 96 engine-minutes (1.5 engine-hours) per flight. This totals to about fifty flight hours so far, and with fifty to a hundred shuttle flights ahead, another seventy five to one hundred fifty hours of operation. Now, while a 747 has four engines, i doubt that it takes 25 hours to fly from New York to Tokyo... -george ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 90 03:06:46 GMT From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In article <7932@ncar.ucar.edu> dlb@hao.hao.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) writes: >... The bad part is that the amount of time available >to photometrists on HST is incredibly small in comparison to the problems >awaiting solution. How can one derive accurate light curves for objects >with 30-day periods when that might require several dozen pointings... Another aspect of this is that the HST photometer has, literally, several orders of magnitude better time resolution for *fast* variation than ground-based instruments... but this is so far in advance of ground-based work that there's going to be a lot of groping in the dark to figure out what objects show interesting behavior on such time scales. Said groping would be greatly aided by rather more telescope time. The photometrists may end up ahead as a result of recent developments, sperical aberration and all. -- NFS is a wonderful advance: a Unix | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology filesystem with MSDOS semantics. :-( | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #39 *******************