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, 12 Jun 91 04:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4cJRRwG00WBwEDyU5X@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 04:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #633 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 633 Today's Topics: Re: lifeboats....ACRV Summary of 5/20 Space News (Fred Funding) Re: Bootstrapping (Was: Re: S.E.T.I. Who can give me any reasons ...) Re: Keck (was Re: Privatization) Re: lifeboats Re: Babies in Space Re: Privatization Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus?) 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: 24 May 91 22:55:14 GMT From: agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: lifeboats....ACRV In article <1991May23.003204.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> gerlach@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >For Net knowledge sake. I work in the Orbiter and GFE Projects Flight Data and >Evaluation office as a Mission Evaluation Room Manager. However, I can soak my >father, Ronald H. Gerlach/Project Manager - Assured Crew Return Vehicle, for >any specific information. I know the ACRV project office is more than happy to >send out any information to clear up allot of missconceptions out there >concerning there project!! Two questions about the ACRV: 1: How are the capsule designs going? All I have heard about in the past year is the lifting body consept out of NASA/Langley. 2: Could an ACRV be modified for launch on a expendable launcher, and if so, could it be modified for launch WITH people on board, e.g. as a crew transport? Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 12:20:40 GMT From: eagle!sei_4.lerc.nasa.gov!dbm0000@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Dave McKissock) Subject: Summary of 5/20 Space News (Fred Funding) The May 20-26, 1991 edition of SPACE NEWS has two front page articles about Fred Funding. Below are some excerpts from the two articles: Rep. Bob Traxler (D-Mich), chair of the House Appropriations submittee that oversees NASA, says a decision by members of the House of Representatives to press NASA to stop work on the station would follow a debate about the program on the House floor, whick likely will take place around June 4. If the House approves the panel's recommendation to change the Station 1992 funding from $2 billion to $100 million, Traxler says they will direct NASA to use the remaining 1991 funds to terminate the effort. The $100 million in 1992 funding would go for leftover termination costs and [Guess what :)] new studies on a more modest orbiting facility. Senate & administration officials say they will not allow the House to unilaterally dismantle the Station program. Press secretary for Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Mich, chair of the Senate panel that oversees NASA appropriations), says a decision on Station will affect the space program for the rest of the decade, and must be a bicameral decision. [My dictionary says "bicameral" means based on two legislative chambers.] By deleting most Station funding, they were able to put $1.2 billion into housing, environmental, vetrans medical care and other programs. Even the National Cemetary System would receive an additional $5 million. The remaining $800 million goes to other NASA programs, primairly space science projects. One House staffer said a barrage of letters from the space science community before the markup was a factor in the decision to kill Station & give space science efforts the money requested for 1992. By naming specific winners in canceling the Station, the panel created powerful forces in favor of the program's demise, say congressional staffers & NASA managers. In a separate article (Mixed reaction to Cut), it's reported that many space scientists were upbeat about the House vote. They argued the action will force NASA to reorient the design to better serve science [Question: How does one reorient something that has been cancelled]. On the other side of the fence, Ray Williamson (analyst with Congressional Office of Technology Assessment), said canceling Station could be seen as a "vote of no confidence" for space programs, which could decrease support for exploration missions. Jerry Grey, director of science & technology for AIAA, says if NASA started all over again, they might end up with something cheaper, but not if you include the cost of the $5 billion already spent. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave McKissock sakissoc@mars.lerc.nasa.gov NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland Ohio. Opinions expressed herein probably bear absolutely no resemblance to the official NASA position. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 17:07:37 GMT From: pasteur!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!umich!sharkey!nstar!crom2!jim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (James P. H. Fuller) Subject: Re: Bootstrapping (Was: Re: S.E.T.I. Who can give me any reasons ...) dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > I also dispute the idea that breaking out into space requires large > amounts of terrestrial resources. The real cost is in labor, in > design, manufacture and operation; a rocket simply doesn't contain > very much material, after all. A spaceship is an economic unit just like a bargeload of coal or a pork belly. When you compute the cost of a spaceship you have to compute the cost of everything that goes into it, *including* the labor, and the cost of training and organizing the labor, and supporting the labor, and supporting the sort of technological society that produces space-science majors in the first place (hunter-gatherer societies don't, you know.) That's where the requirement for large amounts of terrestrial resources comes in, and the rules don't allow you to exclude any of it from your calculation. If you're disputing the notion that space travel is costly simply be- cause a particular spaceship doesn't contain huge amounts of raw materials then I think you need to reprogram your computer. crom2 Athens GA Public Access Unix | i486 AT, 16mb RAM, 600mb online Molecular Biology | AT&T Unix System V release 3.2 Population Biology | Tbit PEP 19200bps V.32 V.42/V.42bis Ecological Modeling | admin: James P. H. Fuller Bionet/Usenet/cnews/nn | {jim,root}%crom2@nstar.rn.com ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 91 00:07:26 GMT From: pasteur!agate!spool.mu.edu!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Keck (was Re: Privatization) In article <11506@ncar.ucar.edu> steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes: \I would (though I suspect my opinion is in the minority). /Didn't the Augustine Report, however, specifically say that *science* \should be deciding factor for the space program? If so, your suggestion /would appear to be right on the mark. There are many different sorts of science that can be done. Anything from studying humans in zero-g, to the plasma around earth, to the near-earth asteroids, Earth's moon and Mars' moons, and some comets, for resource studies, or studying purely for abstract reasons the solar system and the universe beyond, like quasars and neutron stars. "Space science" could conceivably cover a very large range of research, from quasars to technology development like laser launchers and mass drivers. I suspect that the latter is what the report called for, although I have not read it. It may be that pure astrophysical research could give us the secrets behind such things as the Alderson, er, I mean Crazy Eddie drive :-). -- 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: 25 May 91 00:18:20 GMT From: wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@decwrl.dec.com (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: lifeboats In article <42637@fmsrl7.UUCP> wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes: Path: rouge!rex!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!caen!ox.com!fmsrl7!wreck From: wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) Newsgroups: sci.space Summary: Apollo CM would need redesign or assistance. Date: 22 May 91 15:41:08 GMT References: <1991May17.023728.17989@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991May18.233449.10542@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991May19.023624.29374@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991May20.184528.19548@agate.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) Organization: Ford Motor Company, Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI Lines: 40 In article <1991May20.184528.19548@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: >You're forgetting something... all the orbital maneuvering (reaction control >system etc) was on the SM if I remember correctly. I'm not sure how happy the >astronauts would be about dropping hydrazine in their capsule for RCS >purposes. The CM had limited reaction control capabilities. I've seen the Apollo 9 CM a few times; there are most definitely RCS nozzles built flush into the skin down near the heat shield. The CM most definitely carried fuel for these thrusters; the hydrazine (or whatever) problem is old hat. However, these jets won't work for orbital maneuvering for several reasons. 1.) They are designed to maintain spacecraft attitude during re-entry. Thus, they can only roll, pitch and yaw the spacecraft. 2.) Thrusters to translate the spacecraft in the X, Y and (important for docking) Z axes are absent. 3.) The rotational thrusters aren't balanced. (They didn't need to be.) A little translational push from a rotation is of no consequence during re-entry, but it is a serious problem when docking. This means that the CM cannot be used as a crew vehicle or lifeboat without either modification or an SM-equivalent. It can't dock without assistance, nor push away from a space station either. These capabilities are required for either crew rotation or lifeboat operations. Considering our progress in ultra-low-power electronics (for avionics), high-strength materials (for oxygen tanks), powerful batteries, and other technologies, it should not be difficult to design a CM-equivalent which can be shipped up to a space station, dock with it, and then either work as a crew transport or lifeboat. It might be possible to build one into a CM-shell and omit the SM, but I believe that it will be necessary to get somewhat fancy with the thruster configuration to achieve the necessary capabilities. -- 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: 24 May 91 13:27:06 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: Babies in Space In article <12947@sybase.sybase.com>, brook@alf.sybase.com (brook mantia) writes: > In article <9551@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes: > >Yes reduced gravity should cause problems for pregnancies and growing > >children > Why? Esp. for pregnancies. I'd imagine reduced gravity might make pregnancy > easier. Just wondering... > Cheers, > Brook Mantia > PS: If anyone knows of any good reference material regarding this subject > I'd be very appreciative. Thanks. How can we have any good, fair, or even poor reference materials on this? We know essentially nothing, and no amount of study on earth can give us this information, barring good practical antigravity devices capable of operating for months (in the case of pregnancy) or years (growing children.) The only way to do zero-gravity biology is in zero gravity. Low-gravity biology can be done in low gravity, or by using spin in zero gravity. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 16:45:28 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!uafhp!bmccormi@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Brian McCormick) Subject: Re: Privatization In article <12761@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > While I appreciate others supporting my position, I doubt that it could > be done THAT cheaply, but it is feasible to get a "permanent" manned > presence in space NOW if the governments can be kept out of interference. All this talk of "government interference" and "private enterprise" reminds me of a discussion I used to have with a co-worker. He was pretty extreme in his viewpoint that government should get out of everything. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that he held those political views primarily because he wanted to get out of paying taxes. In any case, those discussions provided a good paltform for exploring the influence and interference of the governement and how they affect the actual cost of programs. There are two basic points that I would like to make that have relevance to this pontification of the virtues of private industry in space. 1. Private industry does not always do something more efficiently. This may come as a surprise to some of you, but it's true. As an example, consider this: private insurance companies end up paying out benefits on their policies at the rate of about 80 cents on the dollar (varies from company to company). Medicare and Medicaid are actually much more efficient. They pay out rougly 96-98 cents in benefits for every dollar they receive. My understanding is that the more comprehensive Canadian health care program has a similar efficiency. It is fairly obvious that NASA is a very inefficient organization. However, you simply can't use the argument that private industry is always more efficient to justify a position that private could provide all the same services as NASA at the same cost. There isn't a private company tha does all the things NASA does to compare NASA to. If you want higher efficiency, you can probably get it by reforming NASA. There is no guarantee at all that you can get it by forming a separate private enterprise. 2. There seems to be little interest on the part of private industry in developing space. I say this for a number of reasons, but the most important one is that industry has neither made a substantial investment in space infrastructure, nor has it made any really serious attempts to overcome the regulations you say stand in its way. The fact is, that aside from a handful of small ventures which have had little impact, the only infrastructure that private industry has spent its money on is infrastructure which enhances existing ground based infrastructure (communications satellites for example). Private industry has not invested significantly in launch capability, nor in an orbiting platform, nor in its own lunar prospecting mission. In particular, private industry has shown no interest in a manned program. As for government regulations... Considering that S&L's, Banks, airlines, and cable TV all got deregulated in the 80's, I don't see how a concerted lobbying investment by space interest groups and private industry could have failed. Unless of course, there was so little interest in the development of space that no one was willing to invest their money in deregulation... It's pretty obvious that congress listens to whatever lobbying group makes the best pitch, and it's even more obvious that NASA is ineffective (or possibly laughable) as a lobbying organization. Years of budget cuts are a testament to the latter. I personally would like to see private industry in space, at least as an alternative to government programs. However, I am not so blinded by a love of private industry that I fail to take note of the fact that private industry is uninterested in space. When the potential to make an immediate profit in space is already in place, I'm sure private industry will take an interest. In the meantime, the government will have to suffice. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 91 18:12:03 GMT From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpmcaa!winter@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Kirt Alan Winter) Subject: Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus?) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >> [any experiments?] > > Not yet. The farthest anybody has gone, that I recall, is hatching eggs > in orbit. Something that has been on the life-sciences wish list for a > *long* time is to take the life cycle for something like mice from > conception through to birth, and preferably through at least one more > generation, in free fall. It's still on the wish list. I seem to recall an experiment on one of the Skylab missions that involved minnows (or some other small fish). The adult minnows didn't do too well with weightlessness (swam around in little loops), but the offspring that hatched seemed to do much better. Does anybody else remember this experiment? Kirt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kirt Alan Winter winter@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com Hewlett Packard - Cardiology Business Unit (503) 472-5101 x371 McMinnville, Oregon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #633 *******************