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 ; Sat, 15 Dec 1990 02:09:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 15 Dec 1990 02:08:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #660 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 660 Today's Topics: Additions to Frequently asked SPACE questions The Next Ten Years In Space (LO-O-ONG) NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle 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: 12 Dec 90 03:34:29 GMT From: ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mtdoom!dant@ucsd.edu (Dan Tilque) Subject: Additions to Frequently asked SPACE questions eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes: > >You can make it change. Just discuss the changes on the net, then mail the >resolution to me. Coming to a concensus on the net can be difficult if not impossible, but I'll try anyway. Here are some proposed additions. Anyone have severe objections? Anyone want to write answers and mail them to Eugene? 1. How can someone get computer readable images from space probe X? 2. Why do the Principle Investigators get to hog their data for a full year instead of releasing it to me (Joe Taxpayer) who paid for it? 3. Why don't we ship nuclear waste into the sun? Note that I'm not asking for answers. I either already know or don't care. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mtdoom.WR.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 90 06:11:00 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com (Mark Robert Thorson) Subject: The Next Ten Years In Space (LO-O-ONG) As we near the end of another year, let us celebrate the vision of the pioneers of our space program. The following quotations come from THE NEXT TEN YEARS IN SPACE 1959-1969, Staff Report of the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959). ----------------------------------------------------- [Brig. Gen. Boushey, USAF] Based on my assumptions that we will steadfastly support a vigorous scientific and military space program, I believe the following space goals will be achieved during the next decade: 1959 Unmanned space probes (and lunar probes). 1960 Unmanned communications satellites 1961 Unmanned geodetic survey, reconnaissance, and attack- warning satellites 1961 Unmanned weather reporting satellites 1961 Unmanned navigation satellites 1963 Unmanned lunar and planetary satellites 1965 Manned maintenance, repair, and resupply space vehicles 1965 Unmanned lunar surface vehicles (soft landing capability) 1966 Manned lunar circumnavigation (and return to Earth) 1967 Manned defensive/offensive space vehicles 1968 Manned "all-purpose" space station (astronomical observatory, Earth surveillance, weather reporting, and communication relay) 1968 Manned lunar vehicle (landing and return to Earth) 1969 Manned lunar base (start construction) . . . Launching costs would be further reduced by development of fully recoverable boosters in 2 sizes of approximately 1 million, and 4 million pounds thrust. These will be developed as a matter of urgency during the next 5 years. In addition, the advantages of nuclear rocket propulsion are so great that I believe this type rocket engine will also receive priority emphasis and will be developed within the 8- to 10-year time period. . . . Last, I believe electrical propulsion devices will be developed during the next 5 years. Whether they be ion, plasma, or particle type units, they most probably will require small, nuclear reactors for their source of electrical energy. Since only relatively low thrust outputs are necessary for these type reaction engines to be extremely useful, the nuclear reactor can be small and of low power, and, even for manned space flight, would not entail intolerable shielding weights. I expect such electrical propulsion devices and their necessary nuclear power sources will be in use within 6 years. . . . We can also expect, during the next 10 years, that piloted space flight will become routine, and will be followed by not only a manned circumnavigation of the Moon, but near the end of the 10-year period, the start of construction of a large space station which will be assembled section by section as the result of numerous individual firings from an equatorial launch site. Final join-up of these sections will be accomplished by piloted "space-tugs" which will operate in orbit during their entire useful life. In addition to the "tugs", manned resupply and maintenance spacecraft will shuttle from the Earth's equator to the orbiting satellites. Of course military spacecraft will police the near vicinity of the Earth to prevent the use of space for aggressive purposes. ---------------------------------------------- [Arthur C. Clarke] In the decade 1960-70 I think we may expect the following with a very high degree of assurance, almost amounting to certainty: Automatic probes to the Moon, Mars, Venus. Establishment of meteorlogical and communication satellites, possibly manned, certainly visited by servicing teams. Manned flights around Moon, without landing. Robot landings on Moon. Flight tests of nuclear propulsion devices. The following are possible, but much less likely in 1960-70: Probes to Mercury, asteroid belt, outer solar corona. Manned flights around Mars and Venus without landing, except on Mars' moons. Landing of manned spaceship on Moon. I consider the latter unlikely before 1970 owing to limitations of technical manpower and the need to assimilate the results of the first period of astronatuical research. It would be unhealthy to force the natural pace of development and attempt too much, too soon. Of all the applications of astronautics during the coming decade, I think the communications satellite the most important. The use of satellites for TV and radio relaying was, I believe, first suggested by myself in the British journal Wireless World in 1945, and it is now widely conceded that this may be the only way of establishing a truly global TV service. . . . The TV satellite is mightier than the ICBM; this is the fact which I would most earnestly bring to the attention of your committee. ------------------------------------- [Dr. Walter R. Dornberger, Bell Aircraft] In the powerplant field, the following _will_ be achieved: 1. The successful development of operational first-stage booster powerplants with millions of pounds of thrust, however, using cheap and conventional propellants. 2. The successful development of operational upper stage high- energy propellant powerplants (hydrogen-oxygen, flourine- hydrogen). 3. The successful development of nuclear powerplants for the upper stages. This powerplant will be used for manuvering in space. 4. The successful development of air-breathing recoverable manned first-stage boosters (turbojet-ramjet combination) taking off horizontally and launching the upper stages at altitudes of about 60,000 feet and speeds of about Mach 5. For economy reasons we will have later in that time period no expendable first-stage boosters any more for civilian and scientific space flights. ------------------------------- [Frederick C. Durant III, former pres. American Rocket Society] In the year following the first sputnik there was some funding of earlier planned programs, such as Dyna-Soar, X-17, the Sentry, and Army and Air Force vehicles, but the United States spent essentially nothing on new concepts--new creative space programs. In my opinion, the relative space technical capabilities of the two nations changed little, if any, in 1958. I do not argue the "case for panic." I state simply that the United States has not yet faced the challenge as presented by the U.S.S.R. We are forming set patterns of thinking and relaxing in unwise confidence that the NASA will be the guiding light into space. Our scientific planners are overconservative, in my opinion, and a change must occur if the United States is not to meet defeat. Defeat not in a hot war--but, humiliatingly, at our own game: Creative, industrial, technical enterprise; the bold scientific program. . . . With a few exceptions of outstanding industry and governmental teams, I don't see this combination of qualities, determination, and financial support in the United States today. Maybe we have to get mad. Maybe we need a Pearl Harbor in space. I think we'll get one. ----------------------------------------- [George L. Haller, General Electric] A type of rocket now being considered for space vehicles is a high- temperature nuclear reactor through which is passed a low molecular weight propellant such as hydrogen or ammonia that is heated by the fission process and is then exhausted through a rocket nozzle to produce thrust. Since the nuclear rocket would not have to carry a high molecular weight oxidizer, it could theoretically have a specific impulse at least double that of the best chemical rocket. The nuclear heat transfer rocket might prove useful for putting large payloads in orbit (on the order of 25,000 pounds or more) and for space missions to the Moon, Mars, or Venus. General Electric's aircraft nuclear propulsion department is presently under contract to the United States Air Force and the AEC to develop a nuclear turbojet powerplant for aircraft propulsion. The development of related powerplants for space propulsion is a logical extension of this work. . . . General Electric, like other firms engaged in missile and space work, is concerned about the question of indemnity as it pertains to unusually hazardous risks arising from missile space programs. An indemnity provision should be included in the Space Act. Participation by industry in space development in the coming years will increase the need for protection against liability claims too large to be assumed as a business risk and for which adequate insurance is not available. . . . We are seriously disturbed by the sweeping authority of the patent provisions of the Space Act. As written, the act grants the Government exclusive ownership of any inventions conceived or first put to use under any contractural or other arrangement between a company and NASA. Apparently, these exclusive rights might attach to inventions made with private funds in advance of and independently of a contract proposal, or even to inventions stemming from noncontractural research and development that a company might undertake for commercial purposes, if the inventions related to one of the scientific fields also being investigated for NASA. ------------------------------- [Alexander Kartveli, Republic Aircraft] The listing below is a logical sequence of significant events in the conquest of space. The dates assigned are a rough assessment of the difficulty of the tasks. It presumes a realistically large unified development effort. 1957 First sputnik. 1958 Explorers and Vanguard. Moon probe. 1959 Planetary probe. 1960 Manned Earth satellite. 1961 Instrumented lunar hard landing. 1962 Instrumented planetary hard landing. Instrumented lunar soft landing. 1963 Instrumented planetary soft landing. 1965 Man in orbit around Moon. 1968 Space station for staging to Moon and planets. 1969 Man on Moon. 1970-75 Moon base. . . . Manned space stations have been suggested as a staging area for further exploration of space. The present "man-in-space" programs planned for the near future offer considerable hope that in a 10-year period the first operational space stations will have been placed in orbit. ----------------------------- [Roy Knutson, North American Aviation] The ultimate objective of manned space flight within the vicinity of Earth will be a satellite large enough to permit occupancy by a number of men for extended periods of time. Manned space stations will probably represent the highest attainment of space technology within the decade ahead. Realization of such devices will depend on advances in the state of the art in a number of fields. Large rocket boosters must be developed, producing millions of pounds of thrust. New environmental control systems must be designed to maintain human life. A reliable orbital-shuttle vehicle must be developed to ferry men and supplies. And a host of subsystems, large and small, of hitherto unattainable reliability must be built. The first space station will probably be a single integrated assembly boosted directly into orbit with a large rocket booster and several succeeding stages. One such design envisions a cylindrical vehicle 7 feet in diameter and 50 feet long, boosted into orbit by a 6 million pound thrust booster. A complement of 5 men would man the station for a period of 30 to 60 days. . . . Toward the end of the decade, a fairly comprehensive picture of the surface of Mars should be available. The presence of life on Mars, in the form of vegetable matter of a low order, has long been a provocative conjecture. The orbiting vehicle may provide answers to the question. And of course, the nature of the famous "canals," if, indeed they exist at all, might be settled by a close look at the Martian surface. ------------------------------------------ [Dr. Theodore Merkle, Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, CA] The major problem of those wishing to explore "space"--that is, the volume of space lying between the orbits of Mars and Venus--is as it has always been, the problem of devloping a suitable propulsion plant. It is clear that chemical systems for such a task would be enormously expensive, vastly hazardous, and in the last analysis too unreliable. . . . Light, reliable reactor systems will be developed for use by parties wishing to land on the Moon, Mars, and Venus. Such landings will _not_ occur during the coming decade, but somewhat later. --------------------------------------------- [Dr. Glauco Partel, founder Italian Rocket Association] . . . Artificial ball lightning for ore mining with an extremely speedy and most economical process. Such lightning, already under research, would, with extraordinary speed, cut into the ground and form mining shafts with solid, streamlined walls . . . Operative jet torpedoes with underwater jets of both the rocket and ram-jet type . . . Operational underwater missiles with speeds of 300 knots . . . Ocean depths used as the biggest launching pads in the worlds, having the huge advantage of being concealed . . . -------------------------------------------- [George H. Stoner, (General Manager, Dyna-Soar) Boeing] The nuclear rocket will allow us to reduce the bulk of these lunar and satellite booster systems by a factor of 8 or 10, at least. . . . Can we design a manned nuclear rocket for use in the atmosphere where radiation scattering is a hazard, and avoid the weight penalties of standard shielding techniques? A possible solution might involve the use of nuclear ferry vehicles to transport large payloads to the satellite space station. A different type of nuclear rocket with a relatively light shadow shield could then be used in space to transport men to the Moon and back. In any case, our space efforts will be rather limited in the next 10 years unless the rapid development of the nuclear rocket receives increased emphasis. With strong support, the nuclear rocket could be available for operational use by 1968, though unexpected problems in the testing and development of flight hardware could lead to delay. ------------------------------------------------------ [George S. Trimble, The Martin Co.] Eighteen months ago, 3 months before Sputnik I, some of my collegues and I were laughed out of a very scientific meeting for proposing and showing how to build a large military base on the Moon, not because the people at the meeting disagreed with the feasibility of or desire for the scheme, but because the task of selling the need to the American public seemed so impossible to them that consideration of the proposal seemed a complete waste of time. The scientists apparently did not believe the American people would find any sense in such an idea. I cannot agree with this. ------------------------------------------------------ [Dr. Wernher Von Braun, Army Ballistic Missile Agency] The extent of United States achievements in the space age's next decade will depend on such a well laid-out national program. The Soviet Union with its traditional 5-year-plans obviously has such a long-range space program in operation. It is utterly essential that we now commit our resources likewise to a long-range, integrated national program and sustain that program even if public interest in it temporarily abates. For if public opinion again becomes lethargic, it will, of course, be reawakened by Soviet accomplishments. But the resultant stop-and-go method would be neither economical nor successful. I hope you will not think I am begging the question of _where_ we are going by answering with another question: _How_much_ are we willing to pay? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 90 20:32:15 GMT From: ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird!tkelso@lll-winken.llnl.gov (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. STS 35 1 20980U 90106 A 90340.71451300 .00053642 00000-0 37954-3 0 129 2 20980 28.4668 332.8436 0011228 341.6274 18.4530 15.72433683 705 -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #660 *******************