Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Wed, 5 Jun 91 02:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0cH8AIe00WBwAcjk4Z@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 02:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #600 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 600 Today's Topics: Re: Building Infrastructure Huh? Space Station Cancelled? Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!! Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated Re: Space bicycles anyone? POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING CANCELLATION Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516 Re: space news from March 18 AW&ST Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!! 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: 20 May 91 20:41:13 GMT From: hela!aws@uunet.uu.net (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure In article <1991May20.054325.2296@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>Like the Kelly Act, this approach is intended to create markets. >Not at all. The Kelly Act was aimed at a _current market_, mail >delivery. A major part of the Kelly Act was to promote a passenger airline industry. William Brown (Hoovers Postmaster General) wanted to promote an avation industry for defense. He felt the best way to do that was to provide incentives to airmail carriers to build bigger aircraft. He got the act amended to provide incentives for larger airframes, multi-engines, and better navigation. The incentives also encouraged providers to sell space for passengers. This provided a set of incentives and moved the aircraft industry toward what we see today. >Furthermore, a primary motivation was to strengthen >the secondary industry, aircraft production, since it was important >for the defense. The point is it had a major impact on the technology and direction air travel took. >>If I where doing it I would set aside funds for lowest absolute >>cost to orbit, lowest incrimental cost to orbit (lowest cost/lb) >>and lowest cost for a launcher which could carry humans >Yes, but how low? Of course it would take a bit more research to set numbers, however I think $1500/lb for the first K kilos, and $5 million for each of the first L launches is about right. K and L are numbers I wouldn't want to guess at. I would also pay a bonus if the payload goes up in a vehicle a human could go up on and return in. The payload for all these vehicles is to be water delivered to LEO. >Cost to what orbit? LEO. >Why is delivering humans into orbit important? Because I want to promote a spacefaring civilization. You can't do that without having people up there. This will reduce the cost just as the Kelly act reduced the cost of passenger air. >What current, or even near-future, market does that serve? As I said, this is to create markets the same way the Kelly Act created today's passenger market. >What about delivery and processing of >extraterrestrial materials in competition with launching from earth? Gee Nick, what current or even near term market does that serve? :-) I think that is an excellent idea. I can think of two ways to promote that. We add a provision stating that ANY delivery of water to LEO qualifies for payment. Eventually the payments from the act will be so low that only extraterestrial resources can meet the demand. When this happens we will see people to out to the Moon and asteroids to meet the demand. Another way would be to simply add a payment for delivery of water to LEO from extraterestrial sources. By making the payment large enough we can cause it to happen almost anytime. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 91 18:48:05 GMT From: agate!bionet!ucselx!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!news.stolaf.edu!thor.acc.stolaf.edu!raich@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas Raich) Subject: Huh? Space Station Cancelled? I seemed to have missed something in reading the net-news. There is a current discussion taking place about SS Freedom being 'cancelled', which is news to me. Now I am considering the possibilty that this is just a discussion and people are proposing the demise due to some circumstances, although I am not sure. Can someone clarify this? Also, this has brought an interesting question to mind. I read the magazine updates that are posted to the net (Thanks to whoever you are, they are quite informative) but does anyone follow congress and the different subcommittees that in relation to space? If so, can we persuade you to enlighten us on a regular interval? I know I have searched and searched to learn how these folks vote, try insight the magazine. Thanks for any info... Thomas ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 07:07:24 GMT From: han@apple.com (Byron Han) Subject: Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!! In article <1991May17.150900.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >I feel that if the space station gets cut then NASA will never see that money >again. Space Science will NEVER see that money again. For people who did not >want the station because it did not suit their particlar project: Now you >have NOTHING! > I completely agree with you. One of the saddest things I have seen is the (successful usage of) divide and conquer tactics. Let's get the space station and space science people pissed off at each other. Let's get one to help us kill the other. Then let's go after the survivor. The real problem is not "space science" vs "space station". The real problem is dealing with the bloated parts of the rest of the budget. -- Byron Han, CommToolbox Emir The dream continues... Apple Computer, Inc. -------------------------------------------- 20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 35CP Internet: han@apple.COM Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink: HAN1 HAN1@applelink.apple.COM Phone: 1.408.974.6450 CompuServe: 72167,1664 ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 91 03:01:52 GMT From: usc!samsung!rex!rouge!dlbres10@rutgers.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated In article <1991May19.014045.20462@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >I was not aware that sci.space HAD a moderator. I certainly agree that >sci.space would benifit from one (or a more active/visible one). It is >worth noting that on sci.military, untill about a month ago, there was >apparently no moderator. When one appeared (Actually I think he had beed >out of town or something...) the time I spent reading that newsgroup >decreased by about 50%, without the quality or level or information >really changing. Well, I was suggesting that sci.space be moderated; and that in order to reduce the workload that the moderator should be changed from time to time, just like sci.military, which I believe just changed moderators from Bill Thacker to whoever [CDR] is; I haven't read the new one enough to know if he's as good as Bill Thacker, but Bill Thacker did a pretty good job. I don't know how good, sci.mil is the only moderated newsgroup I've read. -- Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418 ''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_ ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 23:51:46 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!aurora.physics.utoronto.ca!neufeld@ucsd.edu (Christopher Neufeld) Subject: Re: Space bicycles anyone? In article hpasanen@cs.hut.fi (Harri Pasanen) writes: >I was just bicycling home yesterday and fighting the gravity on a modest >rise when this though grossed my mind. > >Has anybody ever proposed space bicycles? > Charles Sheffield has written a short story "Grand Tour" which appears in _Project Solar Sail_ edited by Arthur C. Clarke. In this story a bicycle race is held in space, the pilots' musculature driving a Wilmhurst generator to power an ion engine. In the December 1990 issue of the online science fiction magazine "Quanta", Phillip Nolte also has a story, called "Endurance Racer" with essentially the same hardware. If a person can manage 600 Watts sustained energy expenditure and the ion engines operate with cesium fuel exhausting at 1 kg/hour, this represents an impulse of about 0.6 Newtons. Somebody care to check this? The impulse then scales as the square root of the exhaust rate per hour for fixed power input. -- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | There no place like $FC58 neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra! | They're $FF69-ing my cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com | every word! Send for a "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | free $A56E. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 13:21:39 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING CANCELLATION X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING UPDATE: 19 MAY /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ WARNINGS CANCELLED: - POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING - POTENTIAL MINOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING - LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WATCH WARNINGS CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS: None. ATTENTION: The effects from the major flare of 16 May failed to materialize. The window for possible terrestrial geomagnetic and auroral storming has passed. The Potential Geomagnetic Storm Warning has been terminated. Geomagnetic activity and auroral conditions are expected to remain dormant over the next 24 hours. The next possible storm period may commence on 23 or 24 May, due to recurrent effects from a well placed coronal hole which produced strong terrestrial effects in late April. Geomagnetic and auroral storming may be possible after 24 May, peaking between 25 and 27 May. A Potential Geomagnetic Storm Warning may be issued sometime during the period if recurrent effects are expected to be strong. More will be known in the days to come. The Potential Major Solar Flare Warning and the Low Latitude Auroral Activity Watch have been cancelled. No major flares are expected from the regions currently visible. All warnings have been terminated. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 91 01:40:45 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated In article <31262@rouge.usl.edu> dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Phil Fraering) writes: >I would like to suggest that the position of moderator be rotated; I was not aware that sci.space HAD a moderator. I certainly agree that sci.space would benifit from one (or a more active/visible one). It is worth noting that on sci.military, untill about a month ago, there was apparently no moderator. When one appeared (Actually I think he had beed out of town or something...) the time I spent reading that newsgroup decreased by about 50%, without the quality or level or information really changing. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 91 18:17:24 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!schaper@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Steve Schaper - SSB) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #516 Additionally the non-Galillean moons of Jupiter are arguably captured satlittestilites arg, don't have this editor down yet! captures asteroids, So, IF Galilleo is planned to examine any of them, that could also be useful data. Any captured cometary nuculei would possibly be good sources of volitiles as well. The Galillean moons are too hot (radioactively) and have to much gravity compared to these others to be imediately considered for water/volitile mining. It would be better than earth, but the smaller bodies should be investigated. We can't do that with a crippled Galilleo talking one or two photos per encounter (transmitting via the low-gain antenna to earth) in the Belt. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 03:45:18 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: space news from March 18 AW&ST In article <1991May18.231158.24883@milton.u.washington.edu> wiml@milton.u.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes: > What does a "fast trajectory" mean? Faster than a Hohmann orbit? >Or faster than some other orbit I'm not familiar with? How much time >would this hypothetical trajectory take, and how picky is it about >planetary alignments? Inquiring minds want to know ... > A fast trajectory means faster than a hohmann orbit. In fact a specific transfer orbit. While I don't recall the details, I seem to remember that it is the "next step down" e.g. all the other orbits, except a hohmann orbit, are less efficient. In the case of a Earth to Orbit transfer the fast, or "opposition" class, orbit still takes months (about 3 or 4) as opposed to the 260 days of the Hohmann transfer. The big problems are fuel, about 150% the C(3) energy of a hohmann is required (how 50% more energy translates into fuel mass depends on the design, but a 200 - 400% increase might be a good ball park guess.) Also, a "opposition" class orbit reaches Mars only a week or two before the launch window for an Earth return. As a result, there are two possibilites: 1) Four months in transit to Mars, 2 weeks on the surface, four months returning to Earth. or 2) Four months in transit to Mars, 26 months on the surface, four months returning to Earth. (E.g. miss the first return window and wait for the next.) Neither is too appealing, the first allows not enough time on the surface to justify a manned mission (e.g. the work that men could do in this short time could be just as well done by robots. Men need to be there a while for the advantages of a manned mission to matter.) The second alternative is just TOO LONG for a safe, productive mission (almost 3 years). As a result, the Case For Mars IV, Launch, Assembly and Transportation Workshop recomended that "fast" missions be ignored. The 1000 day hohmann orbit requires not only less fuel, but provides a reasonable ammount of time on the surface (about 460 days.) Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 04:13:28 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May19.004558.28337@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > ... a station >like this would be involved in lots of other activites. Do you really want a multi-purpose station? Trying to be all things to all people in one of the things which is killing/has killed/will kill Freedom. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 13:24:04 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!helios!auvvidl@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Mike Vidlak) Subject: Re: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!! In article <53045@apple.Apple.COM> han@Apple.COM (Byron Han) writes: The real problem is not "space science" vs "space station". The real problem is dealing with the bloated parts of the rest of the budget. I agree 100%. As long as NASA funding is lumped together with HUD and VA, they will always be a target for ``reductions'' so that the rest to the budget can be covered. -- Michael Vidlak mvidlak@cs.tamu.edu auvvidl@auvsun1.tamu.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #600 *******************