Message-ID: <YcRJhv200WBwIKxE48@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat,  6 Jul 91 01:56:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #790

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 790

Today's Topics:
		   Designing composite fuel engines
       URGENT: (Not Again!) Traxler Gambit: The Next Generation
		 Re: Designing composite fuel engines
		     Solar sails and Belt mining
		 Re:  HST vs Ground based telescopes
	     NASA Headline News for 06/21/91 (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: 24 Jun 91 08:23:44 GMT
From: weyrich!orville@uunet.uu.net  (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Designing composite fuel engines

First things first -- I am NOT getting ready to build some rocket engines.
I am seeking information on how to design the suckers in order to construct
a demonstration "expert system" which answers questions about rocket engine
design. [Therefore, please hold the flame-throwers.]

I am aware of a program on calvin which predicts the thrust characteristics
of composite engines. Does anyone know where the technical information which
is incorporated into this program came from? Is it published?

Does anyone know of any good reference materials on the design of composite
fuel rocket engines? [I have a Ph.D. in Physical Organic Chemistry, so I can
handle technical stuff.] I also am interested in less technical 
'rules of thumb'. I know that the AIAA Journal has a lot of good stuff,
and am aware of references such as "Fundamentals of Solid-Propellant 
Combustion", and some older stuff.

Is there anyone out there that is an expert in the field that is willing/able
to act as a [paid] consultant?

Thanks,

Orville.

--------------------------------------           ******************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D.                   Certified Systems Professional
Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net             Weyrich Computer Consulting
Voice:    (602) 391-0821                         POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Fax:      (602) 391-0023                              (Yes! I'm available)
--------------------------------------           ******************************

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

Date: 24 Jun 91 21:46:17 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!pc.usl.edu!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Phil Fraering)
Subject: URGENT: (Not Again!) Traxler Gambit: The Next Generation

it is happening again      it is happening again        it is happening again


Well, twice while driving in to school, and once while driving back,
I heard about Sen. John Rockefeller's plan to help families: start
a $1000 per family tax credit (but not stated to be a tax cut; better
to phrase such things as a gift from the government) for certian families
with children. Projected cost: some $ 50 billion a year. Means of payment:
cutting Space Station Freedom.

The first two times they just talked about it, and didn't talk about how
Fred only has a price tag of about $ 30 billion over the next _ten_ years.

The third time was Daniel Shore commenting on NPR. He praised Sen. Rockefeller
for putting domestic issues back in the national spotlight, and didn't
mention his making a mathematical mistake that mentally disabled people
I know wouldn't have made, _if_ he wasn't lying. (Note: those mentally
disabled people can lie better too. They just aren't lucky enough to meet
Mr. shore and sell him the Brooklyn Bridge).

Seriously, after you throw away the next 20 years of SSF funding on
this one year of entitlement program, HOW DO YOU PAY THE ENTITLEMENT
NEXT YEAR? (Will that be neccesary, after all it is only _one_ year
to the next election, and these things always start as 'temporary'
measures...)

BTW, the netnews link here is down; could those people who agree, disagree
or in general flame please e-mail their responses as well as post (that is,
if they weren't just going to e-mail them).

Finally, this whole thing disturbs me. I don't like it at all, even though
I am also uneasy about Fred (understatement of the year). Actually, I'm
beginning to think Fred could be a very good, very cheap, space station
if it is used as a space station and not a way to hide Shuttle costs...

Philip Fraering|Internet:dlbres10@pc.usl.edu|Yellnet:318/365-5418
Snailmail:2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

And remember: I can't read news, so please e-mail responses. I wouldn't
have posted this, except I think it's kinda important...

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 02:58:32 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!waikato.ac.nz!chem2149@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Designing composite fuel engines

In article <1991Jun24.082344.5655@weyrich.UUCP>, orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:
> First things first -- I am NOT getting ready to build some rocket engines.
> I am seeking information on how to design the suckers in order to construct
> a demonstration "expert system" which answers questions about rocket engine
> design. [Therefore, please hold the flame-throwers.]
> 
> Does anyone know of any good reference materials on the design of composite
> fuel rocket engines? [I have a Ph.D. in Physical Organic Chemistry, so I can
> handle technical stuff.] I also am interested in less technical 
> 'rules of thumb'. I know that the AIAA Journal has a lot of good stuff,
> and am aware of references such as "Fundamentals of Solid-Propellant 
> Combustion", and some older stuff.

I have several good general references at home, I will post the titles and
authors in the next day or two.

The important part to designing a rocket is in obtaining all the propellant
characteristics.  Burning rate profile over a wide pressure range to calculate
pressure exponents.  Burning rate varies due to the temperature of the
propellant before ignition, particle size of the AP, type of binder, catalyst
used, homogenity (sp) of the mixed propellant, source of chemicals, purity of
chemicals used, etc. Once you obtain the propellant characteristics then you 
can start thinking of the rockets purpose.

The purpose of the rocket determines the thrust needed, the duration of thrust,
the areodynamic shape of the rocket.

Missiles have generally two thrust profiles, very high thrust (short duration)
and a low thrust (long duration). 
The first accelerates the missile to its crusing speed. The second is a 
sustainer motor which keeps the missile at this high speed and allows it to 
travel and manovuer to its target. 

To design a high thrust motor the rough calculations are not to complex if 
the propellant characteristics are known. Variations in the calculated thrust
now occur due to nozzle design, erosion of propellant, burning area time
profile, cracks in propellant, acceleration of the rocket, spinning of the
rocket etc.

Low thrust motors can use slow burning propellants with an internal burning
surface or fast burning propellants with an end burning surface. Problems
incountered are  heating the walls of the rocket case with end burning surface,
nozzle heating and erosion etc.

There are so many parameters to consider when building a rocket motor that a
computer programme would be rather large if an accurate determination of the
motors performance in flight is wanted. A good indication should not be to
difficult to obtain. It would be very interesting to compare the calculated and
actual performance of the motor. This would allow you to determine which
parameters are more important for incorporation into the programme.

> Is there anyone out there that is an expert in the field that is willing/able
> to act as a [paid] consultant?

I am not an expert, but working on it. Those who are experts are already
getting paid well and are not able to supply some information. [Paid] $$$$ 
well now I am intrested. I am looking for a job in the solid rocket propellant
field, research and development.

Qualifcations, PhD Chem, BSc Physics, knowledgeable in maths, material science
some computing. Practical knowledge in propellants, pyrotechnics, explosives.
   
> Orville.
> 
> --------------------------------------           ******************************
> Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D.                   Certified Systems Professional
> Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net             Weyrich Computer Consulting
> Voice:    (602) 391-0821                         POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
> Fax:      (602) 391-0023                              (Yes! I'm available)
> --------------------------------------           ******************************


MARTIN VAN TIEL   PhD Chem.

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 00:41:27 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!demon!news@uunet.uu.net  (Ian Stirling)
Subject: Solar sails and Belt mining

>>higher energy photons,this does not seem to violate any laws as you
>>are only able to use a small fraction of the incoming light to heat
>>the object but most of the light goes past at lower overall energy.

>In principle, there is little difference between a solar sail and
a solar mirror. Both can be light foil structures. The control
>problems are somewhat different, but not seriously so. Using filters
>on the mirror would have a negative effect on the amount of focused
>energy. Assuming a near perfect black body as the absorber, any
>photon will contribute energy to the heating process. The concentration
>ratio of the mirror will allow temperatures much higher than the
>surface of the sun at the focal point. The amount of heat delivered
>less the amount reradiated, not just the temperature, determines whether
>rock, or anything else, can be melted. Somewhat less than a kilowatt-sec
>of energy is delivered to each square meter at Earth orbital distance
>from the sun. A mirror with 10,000 square meters surface area focused
>on a 1 square meter target would deliver 10,000 kilowatt-sec or 143,300
Is this possible? Can you do it with non-imaging optics?
How complex are `Non-imaging optics' are they just simple cones with
light shining in one end,being concentrated and leaving at the other
end very concentrated?

>kilogram calories per minute. This would raise the temperature of one
>kilogram of water from 0 Celsus to 143,300 degrees in one minute, if
>you could contain the steam! That ought to be enough to melt any rock.
>This is strictly back of envelope, anyone who wants to consult the
>steam tables, check the solar constant, and do an exact calculation is
>welcome to do so.
>
>Gary
I agree,it would probably work for pureish ice,but what about rock,
someone pointed out the problem that in space there is no gravity so
convection currents don't form and you get very slow melting.Can
anyone say more on this? What would happen If you tried to boil off
the rock with high power light,would you run into problems with
opaque plasma formation?

Mail to either                            |PLEASE do not send large
Printf%cix@ukc.ac.uk                      |(>20K)mail messages as
Printf@cix.compulink.co                   |I get charged for them.
Printf@cix.uucp                           |
one of these may work                     |

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

Date: 24 Jun 91 17:15:18 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!linus!linus!cyclone!sokay@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (S. J. Okay)
Subject: Re:  HST vs Ground based telescopes

In article <Jay.4835@deepthot.cary.nc.us> Jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>In article <869@newave.UUCP> john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>>In <1991Jun9.152756.638@vax.oxford.ac.uk> clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk:
[Various stuff about creating micro-NASAs.
>KSC is very depressing to me, my SO (who is a big space advocate) says
>she'll never go there with me again.  I always see lost potential, and
>I think about where we should be by now as opposed to where we are.
>
>Disney on the other hand is very impressive.  It too does not live
>up to its potential IMHO, however what they set out to do they do quite
>well.  Its very efficient, and the technology blends in seemlessly in
>the places its not supposed to show.

Funny YOU should mention this. :)
I was there the week  before, and not having been there in 20 years,
it was kind of neat to see the place again, yet at the same time I did
get an overall feeling of depression. There's so much concentration on the
glories of the past, that you see next to nothing of the future.
The model of Fred they have in one of the museum halls made me laugh as it
is obviously the design proposed during the early Reagan years.

Its just so depressing to keep hearing the words "were" and "did" and "would have". 

The Saturn V rusting out near the VAB was probably one of the most distressing
sights there to me. It wouldn't be so bad if it had just been a mock-up
or something, but to think that it was actually a flight-capable vehicle at one point....

---Steve

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

Date: 24 Jun 91 22:52:37 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.arc.nasa.gov!usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 06/21/91 (Forwarded)


             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters

  Friday, June 21, 1991 Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788

This is NASA Headline News for Friday, June 21, 1991 . . .

Columbia arrived home this morning and will be destacked from 
the 747 later tonight.   The Spacelab module will be removed once 
Columbia is towed to Orbiter Processing Facility Bay 2.  The Spacelab 
itself will then be transported to the Operations & Checkout Building 
for de-integration.  Columbia is expected to be ready for its flight 
back to California for upgrading and refurbishment by the end 
of summer.

Atlantis will be moved from the Vehicle Assembly Building to Pad 39-A 
late Monday night or early Tuesday morning.

Kennedy's vehicle flow director for Atlantis, Conrad Nagel, said 
yesterday that his team's performance on turning Atlantis 
around for its next flight is the best ever in terms of the time 
involved and the smoothness with which the work was 
accomplished.  The team expected to turn Atlantis around in 65 days 
but bested their estimate and accomplished the turn-around in 59 
days.  Nagel said there were several contributor to this success, 
including clean hardware and the use of "task team leader" concepts in 
scheduling the work.  Nagel said "I feel we can clean up the flow even 
more.  We can roll out with not only the shortest turn around possible, 
but with all the requirements met, and all the paper closed."

Shuttle chief Robert Crippen has asked his staff to develop a set of 
criteria which would allow the use of the Kennedy Shuttle Landing 
Facility as an equivalent end-of-mission landing site to 
Edwards Air Force Base.  The criteria being considered are weather 
forecasting capabilities, runway condition, mission duration and such 
orbiter considerations as landing weight, tire and brake performance 
and presence or absence of drag chute.  The Atlantis STS-43 mission 
will be the first mission to use these criteria to select a landing site -- 
KSC or DFRF.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Several members of the House Subcommittee on Space plan on 
visiting the Johnson Space Center tomorrow.  Those scheduled to 
trek to Houston include Subcommittee Chairman Ralph Hall (D-
Texas), Jim Bacchus (D-Florida), Robert Cramer (D-Alabama), Ron 
Packard (D-California), John Rhodes III (R-Arizona), and Joe Barton 
(R-Texas).  The group will tour the center and conclude their visit with 
a tour and briefing in the Mission Control Center.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Goddard Space Flight Center announced yesterday that they 
will serve as launch operators for the Air Force next week to 
launch a communications experiment satellite into orbit using a Scout 
rocket from Vandenberg AFB.  This is the only Scout mission planned 
for 1991 and will be used to put a $3 million Air Force experimental 
communications satellite into a 450-mile circular orbit.  The Air Force 
satellite is designed to test sophisticated communications capabilities 
in a high radiation environment.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



        
Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV.
Note that all events and times may change without notice, and that all times
listed are Eastern.

Monday, 6/24/91
                 8:00 am	STS-43 Atlantis roll out to launch pad 39-A.

Wednesday, 6/26/91
                 1:00 pm	STS-43 flight crew briefing, from JSC.

Thursday, 6/27/91
                 9:00 am	STS-43 flight director mission briefing,
				from JSC.
                10:00 am        Tracking and Data Relay Satellite briefing,
				from JSC.
                11:00 am        Inertial Upper Stage briefing, from JSC.
                11:30 am        STS-43 SHARE payload experiment briefing, from 
				JSC.
                12:00 pm        STS-43 BIMDA payload experiment briefing, from 
				JSC.
                12:30 pm        STS-43 Protein Crystal Growth experiment 
				briefing, from JSC.
                 1:00 pm	Total Quality Management Colloquium, from NASA 
				HQ.

Friday, 6/28/91
                 2:00 pm	STS-40 post mission flight crew briefing,
				from JSC.

        
This report is filed daily at noon, Monday through Friday.  It is a
service of NASA's Office of Public Affairs.  The contact is Charles
Redmond, 202/453-8425 or CREDMOND on NASAmail.  NASA Select TV is
carried on GE Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West
Longitude, transponder frequency is 3960 megaHertz, audio is offset 6.8
MHz, polarization is vertical.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #790
*******************