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 ; Fri, 28 Jun 91 04:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 04:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #735 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 735 Today's Topics: APS Space Station News Lost satellites SPACE Digest V13 #617 Re: Mars or bust! Re: What's HUD? Re: A Space Science letter Space Link Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise 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: 12 Jun 91 09:23:10 GMT From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@decwrl.dec.com Subject: APS Space Station News From: WTU@psuvm.psu.edu Subject: "What's New" Jun-7-1991 Message-ID: <91158.170731WTU@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 7 Jun 91 21:07:31 GMT Article-I.D.: psuvm.91158.170731WTU Organization: Penn State University Lines: 56 WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 7 June 1991 Washington, DC 1. SPACE SCIENCE IS SACRIFICED BY HOUSE TO RESTORE SPACE STATION. Truth took a holiday in the floor debate over an amendment to put $1.9B back into space station Freedom. The debate was filled with talk about Columbus (Nancy Johnson (R-CT) preferred to talk about "Isabella's boat") and preposterous claims for spinoffs that would have left the most shameless SSC flack gasping. Rep. Hall (D-TX) predicted a cure for cancer would be found on the space station because "we haven't found it on Earth and it must be out there somewhere." The amendment, introduced by Rep. Jim Chapman (D-TX), took most of the $1.9B from other NASA programs, leaving NSF intact but devastating space science programs. NASA Administrator Richard Truly is said to have approved the strategy as a means of disciplining space scientists who opposed Freedom. President Bush personally phoned Republicans urging their support for the amendment. After the vote, Rep. Bob Traxler (D-MI), the subcommittee chair who recommended termination of Freedom, warned that "The space station is going to eat your dinner next year." 2. THE SPACE STATION DEBATE MOVES TO THE SENATE--NSF IS AT RISK. On Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the allocation of dollars among its 13 subcommittees. The HUD/VA/IA Subcommittee allocation, $81.26B, was only $0.05B more than that of its House counterpart. That's not enough to restore the space science programs that were cut by the House--and if an attempt is made to restore the rent subsidy program, which the Chapman Amendment also cut, it could threaten other programs such as NSF. 3. JAPAN LINKS PARTICIPATION IN SUPERCOLLIDER TO SPACE STATION. International partners in space station Freedom had officially expressed indignation at the possibility that the US might dump the space station at this late date. Privately, however, they have been ambivalent at best. The Japanese have threatened not to participate in the SSC if Freedom is cancelled, but in fact they have shown no enthusiasm for the SSC anyway and have refused every inducement to join. So far, Japan has spent perhaps $300M on its part of the space station, compared to $5B for the US. The Germans still face strong opposition from their own scientists to any participation in the manned space station (WN 28 Dec 90). .... Robert L. Park (202) 232-0189 The American Physical Society -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably knew it already. The more bewildered you are, the more successful the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 23:50:56 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!frodo.cc.flinders.edu.au!pippin.cc.flinders.edu.au!mowl@uunet.uu.net (Wolfgang Lieff) Subject: Lost satellites - With Olympus one more satellite is more or less lost in orbit; does anybody know how much 'dead money' belonging to the space agencies or insurance companies is up there in the moment ? - If this sum is a considerable amount, what would be a competitive price the Soviets could charge for stationing a technician and a Soyuz modified as an 'Inter-orbit-toolshed' (maybe without re-entry capabilities) onboard their space station ? Most of a maintenance infrastructure is already there: regular supply uplinks (Progress, Buran) can provide spare parts; continous service (even on weekends) is possible thanks to long-term missions,... It would be very interesting, if somebody (maybe from an insurance company) could give a hint, what they would be prepared to pay if they could get a satellite 'back to work'. Wolfgang Lieff , mowl@cc.flinders.edu.au Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Sciences, Adelaide , Australia ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 19:34:25 EDT Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <18084TM@msu.edu> Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 01:55:45 EDT Reply-To: space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@msu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #617 Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Re : Future of energy and materials (was asteroid mining) >There are multiple possibilities in the wings for new energy sources >when the oil runs out (various forms of nuclear and solar power >have nearly unlimited potential; obstacles of cost can be >confidently predicted to be overcome if a strong incentive is there). Quite idyllic, if untrue. SOLAR ENERGY, besides being inefficient (on Earth, but then, who's going to build solar-energy collectors in space witout asteroids?) are dependent on clouds, lack of space, and night. Very good for passive use, but then, solar will never power cars, trucks, planes, heat (and cool) large builidngs, toast bread, run refridgerators, refine metal, etc, on Earth. HYDROELECTRIC has already been exploited, in the U.S. to it's fullest extent, unless one advocated wholesale destruction of living space (for people, too) by putting multiple dams on a river, creating the dreaded Bloated Locks look. NUCLEAR (fission) depends on Uranium, which, like oil, will become more and more difficult to find and refine. (reserves are about equal to oil right now) FUSION is still a pipe-dream. Since your post was presenting evidence that supported the pipe-dream-ness of Asteroid mining, I will assume that Being A Pipe Dream is sufficient to exlude an energy option. WIND is a great energy source. In windy areas. Few and far between, when you add in the necessary inefficiencies of kinetic-to-electric conversion. OIL, is of course, limited. Current arguments seem to be "We don't look for reserves we don't need, and when we had to look, they were always there." Admittedly, this is fortunate, but hardy proof that "It always will be there" And, for the 'developing nations' to develop, they will need industry, which requires high-density-energy (oil), so the demand will only increase. Just because these sources are in the wings doesn't mean they will ever leave the wings. Are there other long-term energy sources that can compete with oil that I've forgotten? Tom Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 91 23:27:37 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!rhys@uunet.uu.net (Rhys Weatherley) Subject: Re: Mars or bust! > concerns among critics who are worried about the huge cost, put at $500 > billion or more by some analysts. The report, issued after 10 months of > study, did not mention a price tag. Numbers like this always make me laugh. They sound SO BIG!!! Let's say that 100 million Americans had to carry the cost in their tax (I don't know the exact tax-paying population of America). We are talking $5000 each. OK, maybe that's quite a lot to wear all at once. But we are talking over 20 years before the mission gets off the ground. Is $250 a year average too much to ask? Heck, I pay more than that (the equivalent Australian amount) each year on computer equipment and software alone (and I'm a VERY low-volume buyer). My yearly bus pass costs around that as well. And not all of the cost will be borne by the taxpayer if they get industry support, etc. Sheesh. Rhys. +=====================+==================================+ || Rhys Weatherley | The University of Queensland, || || rhys@cs.uq.oz.au | Australia. G'day!! || || "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?" || +=====================+==================================+ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 00:28:03 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: What's HUD? Yes, HUD is the ultimate pork barrell agency. It is subject to intense lobbyng by the contruction industry. Much of its funding disappears. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 00:16:35 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: A Space Science letter I am glad to see somebody in the science community trying to call a halt to the sensless attacks on the Space Station Freedom . I sincerely hope you are successful in restoring proper levels of funding to space science AND the manned program. Scientists should realize that a reform of the federal budget is certainly necessary, but attacking manned space is not the appropriate method. Better to attack the waste and inefficiency in HUD, VA etc. How about privatising VA hospitals, like the space activist libertarians say shoud be done to NASA..... ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 14:55:38 GMT From: infonode!hychejw@uunet.uu.net (Jeff W. Hyche) Subject: Space Link Here in Huntsville at the Marshal Space Flight Center they have a public bbs called Space Link. The number is 205-895-0028, it supports baud rates from 300-2400 bps. I don't use the system because it only goes up to 2400, but now they have added internet access. You can get some of the status reports and Shuttle status from there. Here is the post from the bbs, I hope it helps. "2_9.TXT" (1215 bytes) was created on 04-24-91 Enter {V}iew, {X}MODEM, {Y}MODEM or {M}enu [V]...v Internet Access to NASA/Spacelink WHAT NASA/Spacelink is available to users with access to the Internet. Currently, four TELNET ports are available for callers. These ports can be reached at the following addresses: Domain Name: spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov OR xsl.msfc.nasa.gov Internet Address: 128.158.13.250 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) capability will be implemented soon. XMODEM and YMODEM will not work through the Internet. WHY NASA was approached by universities and other groups designing networks to offer teachers and students access to the services available on the Internet. It became clear that connecting to the Internet would reduce access costs for NASA/Spacelink's target audiences, teachers and students. HOW NASA/Spacelink reaches the Internet via the Southeastern Universities Research Association Network (SURAnet), a regional network affiliated with National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET). FUTURE NASA/Spacelink's next expansion phase will increase several elements of the system, including additional storage for images from NASA's observatories. NASA/Spacelink's Internet connectivity will be upgraded to offer more simultaneous TELNET sessions and FTP file transfers. -- // Jeff Hyche There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 07:14:37 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!geac!aimed!torag!w-dnes!waltdnes@apple.com (Walter Dnes ) Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes: > To minimize the cost of a beanstalk, you would not design it > to hang all the way down to the ground. There is a compromise > design which builds up from the ground using compressive structures > and down from GEO using tensile structures, having their tips > connected but not transmitting large forces across the connection. Maybe we should rename this thread. I posted a couple of weeks ago saying that tethers are theoretically possible, but I had severe doubts about real-world implementation of beanstalks per se. Basically you seem to be agreeing with me. Yours is the second response I've seen so far that suggests going to a tether. > I have done a conceptual design for a 10 km tower using existing > graphite/epoxy, with standard structural allowables and allowing > for a Mach 1 peak wind at 10km altitude (at jet stream altitude), > tapering down to 150 mph peak wind at ground level. The numbers > come out not too bad. Above 10 km, the lower pressure dominates > any conceivable wind speed (I assume no upper atmosphere winds > exceed Mach 1), and the 'scale height', the height over which > the cross sectional area of the structure changes by a factor > of e, increases towards the limit of the material, which is > 10's of km for graphite/epoxy. If we limit the area ratio of > the tower portion to 300, then we end up with a tower on the > order of 60 km tall (this may be off by as much as a factor of > 2, since I have not gone and done a detailed structural analysis) Getting the tether down to 60..100 km above sea level is a good start for cutting down fuel costs. I don't know if it's worth the effort to go the rest of the way. Did you make any allowances for structural icing ? Yes, I *KNOW* the tower/beanstalk/tether will probably be built at the equator. The freezing level is higher there than in the temperate zones, but it does exist. You can get icing in cloud even when there is no precipitation falling down to the ground. Basing a structure in the Sahara is no guarantee against icing in cloud. One of my co-workers deals with consultants regarding design of towers, some of which are on mountaintops, and meteorological theory notwithstanding, in many cases local experience is the only guide she can quote to how much reinforcing is needed. Structural icing is a real-world problem on two fronts. 1) The sheer weight of ice. 2) The ice will increase the cross-section area exposed to winds and thus increase wind loading. How much of a safety margin have you built in ? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 13:01:00 CDT From: David Lowe Many of the most interesting conversations on this forum deal primarily with the economic organization of space research. In some of those discussions it becomes clear that several participants go beyond a practical realization of the advantages of private enterprise to the romanticization of those advantages known as libertarianism. It is easy enough to dismiss this approach when the field under discussion would hardly exist without government intervention. I have usually just written it all off as due to the influence of the late Robert Heinlein on science fiction readers or on the fact that the insufficient humanities background provided in most engineering curricula does not provide an adequate basis for students to discover the silliness the Ayn Rand they read in high school. (Hold the flames; I am an engineer.) Lately, however, remarks have been made that go beyond the normal sniping at government, welfare, taxes, and HUD. Herman Rubin has told us: > There are private space societies. Except for government > restrictions, there is nothing to prevent these space societies > from publicly raising the billions needed for space > activities.... It is fantasy such as this that prevents my taking libertarianism seriously as an intellectual movement. Later Mr. Rubin states: > A single American billionaire attempted to build an > ecologically sound, and eventually to be profitable, enterprise > on a part of Brazil, where the Jary River flows into the > Amazon. On the Jari River, Daniel Ludwig cleared--largely by burning--250,000 acres of ecologically diverse virgin rainforest and replaced it with a huge cellulose and rice farm. This was ecologically sound? Remember that description the next time you hear a libertarian decrying government interference. Do we want to trust these people to knock large pieces of comets and asteroids around near-earth space? For more information on Ludwig's environmental disaster see _The Invisible Billionaire_ by Jerry Shields. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #735 *******************