Message-ID: <YcC=1Yu00WBw85Fk5u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 01:30:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #568

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 568

Today's Topics:
		  Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
		       Re: Saturn V and the ALS
			     Martian Face
	  Re: NASA discovers ... dinosaurs' : -) (Forwarded)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 16 May 91 22:35:45 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!morley.rutgers.edu!purtill@ucsd.edu  (Mark Purtill)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

szabo@sequent.com writes:

>In article <1991May15.215516.27107@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>...  They're dreaming if they think it will have
>>more than a momentary effect on their own financial problems.

>Even a _momentary_ effect is enough to pay for SIRTF, AXAF,
>a greatly expanded ground-based visual search, a greatly expanded
>Antartic asteroid sample return mission, _and_ a gaggle
>of small infrared probes launched into the meteor showers.

>That's right, _all_ of that, spread over several years, costs just
>one year of peak Fred funding (c. $10 billion by GAO estimates).

	But they didn't cut one year of peak Fred funding, they cut
what would have been spent on Fred next year ($2-3bn, I think).
Furthermore, from what I've seen on the net, they didn't give that
money to space science, they gave it to HUD.  The only benefit space
science gets is that it didn't get cut.  This year.  
	In other words, that Fred money *didn't* go to:
>SIRTF, AXAF,
>a greatly expanded ground-based visual search, a greatly expanded
>Antartic asteroid sample return mission, [or] a gaggle
>of small infrared probes launched into the meteor showers.
	so the comment:
>If this hold up, this is a GREAT moment for space exploration.
	seems to me to have no bearing on reality.
	
	Now, it's certainly true that Fred is very expensive.
Spending that money on other "space things" might well be a good idea
-- maybe even on a different space station.  Spending it on HUD (while
perhaps a good idea also, although I doubt it) doesn't do anything for
space exploration, though.
	
^.-.^ Mark Purtill         purtill@dimacs.rutgers.edu         (908)932-4580 (O)
((")) DIMACS, P.O. Box 1179, Rutgers U., Piscataway, NJ 08855 (908)220-6905 (H)
********** Note new area code!  We are now (908) rather than (201)!  **********

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

Date: 17 May 91 01:31:50 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <1991May15.204633.15377@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Yep. Costs are:
>
>1. Develop two HLV's:                $1 billion
>2. Integrate Soyuz with new
>   vehicle:                          $1 billion (should be less than this)
>3. Build econo-lodge station:        $2 billion (I'm splurging here as well)
>                              total: $4 billion
>
Where do these numbers come from? I know of no cost estemates coming out
of industry or NASA to 1: build a HLV for less than $500 million (you
said 2 for a billion) 2: Integrate a Soyuz with any vehicle, at any cost.
Build any station except Freedom. (The most recient western work I have
seen is VERY rough ~1986 US ideas and the European Columbus platform, 
which is also very rough.)
If I had to guess (as you seem to be doing) I'd call that more like
$20 billion. (But you have a good point, that is still less than Freedom.)

As far as orbiting a Spacelab module, it would have to be heavily
modified. The current Spacelab modules have NO power supply or life
support or station keeping rockets. (Also no docking support systems)
Adding these would cut heavily into the module's lab space. A second
specially designed support module might be necessary. (Not that such
a Spacelab/Support Can free flying platform would be a bad idea.)

>
>At the moment there is no need to bring back satellites. Any satellite
>you can name should be either repaired in space or tossed. None are worth
>bringing back and relaunching at Shuttle costs.
>
Except for the simplest (e.g. shake it 'till the solar pannels come free)
sorts of repairs, There is NO capability to repair satellites in orbit.
Since most satellites cost much more than launch costs, it is usually
cheaper to return the satellite to Earth, fix it there and re-orbit it.
(Note that insurance companies PAY to have NASA bring back a broken
satellite.) This sort of repair requires much more than a current generation
station could provide. (Like say even a good machine shop...)

                                  Frank Crary
				  UC Berkeley

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

Date: 16 May 91 23:30:38 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!lstowell@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lon Stowell)
Subject: Martian Face


Does anyone have the martian coordinates for the alleged "face"
on Mars?

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

Date: 17 May 91 03:03:53 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: NASA discovers ... dinosaurs' : -) (Forwarded)

In article <12506@qisoff.phx.mcd.mot.com> hbg6@citek.UUCP (John Schuch) writes:
>>	The team's findings agree with the work of other scientists
>>who have found unusual circular gravity and magnetic patterns and
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>OK, I'll ask.
>Can anyone explain (simply) what a circular gravity pattern is?

They may mean a circular region of lower (or higher) density than the
usual material in the earth's crust. Such mass concentrations (or
the reverse.) can be detected by their effect on a satellite's orbit. 

					 Frank Crary
					 UC Berkeley

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #568
*******************