Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 05:04:13 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #195 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 13 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 195 Today's Topics: Asteroid explorer (2 msgs) Ethics of Terraforming Informing Oppotunity of Utilization JEM NASA working on Apollo rerun new name for NASA? (3 msgs) QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options (2 msgs) RL-10 (2 msgs) Rocket Clones (2 msgs) STS-47 element set JSC-006: orbit 5, flight day 1 Technology development Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Sep 92 01:33:24 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Asteroid explorer Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > >Given some recent discussion on NASA approaches, howabout the >following for a small explorer mission: > >As per the AO you get $17million (1992) for hardware, R&D, >staff etc, same again for launch; mission ops and data analysis >are extra. So, put together a CCD camera, a (IR?) spectrometer, >a low(medium?) gain antenna, redundant tape recorders, the best CPU >and memory that's flight qualified (is the intel chip qualified yet?) >and a couple of ion thrusters with as much fuel as possible - then >go cruise asteroids, first an Earth crosser, then follow it out >to the belt and peek around, keep going till you run out of fuel >or something dies; main problem would be a power supply and weight >constraints... Parity check: $34 million for everything except mission ops and data analysis? A big problem I see here is the one I raised a few years ago, that is we need an upper stage for the Pegasus, or we have to make a customized one for ourselves. Might not be a bad test for the Russian Hall-effect rockets that Loral and SDIO are working on for Clarke orbit satellites. They are going to hook it up to Topaz 2 and put on some high-power scientific instruments, according to Av Week. Of course, they have a bit more than $34 million... Anyway, it would be rough to try to get through the Van Allen belts with an electric rocket. One alternative might be some of the proposed small launchers: Taurus for $17 million, or EPAC's Eagle/S1 for $15 million, which Bowery says could pack 6,000 lbs. to LEO. Jim, would y'all be willing to throw in an upper stage for $2 million? Another alternative might be to piggyback on a bigger launcher to GTO, separate, and go from there, but I don't know how feasible that is, and we'd have to have a pretty flexible launch window. Some of the stuff Henry worked on for the solar sail race might be applicable here. Also, we'd want access to JPL's mission planning software to find the best target opportunities. We'd want to look at something promising that nobody's done yet, like a type C or type M (or type D, but that might be a real stretcher for the upper stage). >Nick, Phil? you wanna put your time where your mouth >is? Heck, Dennis and I could stop saying silly things about each other and we could look at SEDSAT. How about it, Dennis? What's that thing's lifetime, and can it get through the Van Allen Belts? I've been working about 10-20 hours per week on various space projects such as the ice rockets, but would be happy to trade that in for something that will fly this century. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 02:35:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Asteroid explorer Newsgroups: sci.space In article , steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes... > >I think the first post of this was nuked by capricious postware.. > >Given some recent discussion on NASA approaches, howabout the >following for a small explorer mission: > >As per the AO you get $17million (1992) for hardware, R&D, >staff etc, same again for launch; mission ops and data analysis >are extra. So, put together a CCD camera, a (IR?) spectrometer, >a low(medium?) gain antenna, redundant tape recorders, the best CPU >and memory that's flight qualified (is the intel chip qualified yet?) >and a couple of ion thrusters with as much fuel as possible - then >go cruise asteroids, first an Earth crosser, then follow it out >to the belt and peek around, keep going till you run out of fuel >or something dies; main problem would be a power supply and weight >constraints... Nick, Phil? you wanna put your time where your mouth >is? I along with Dr. Higgins saw an awesome presentation at the WSC about a faster cheaper better asteriod mission that boggles the mind. Launched in 98 it would go out to a near earth crossing asteriod, (I forget which one) and actually go into orbit about it. (it is a small one less than 20 miles in diameter) Then after several months it would leave orbit, do a lunar swingby and go out into the belt for a weird grand tour that ends up at Eros in 2008. To top it off you get a couple of comets tossed in for free! I wonder if Bill bought the paper on that one. It was from JPL and was a laugh a minute as this guy tossed out several variations of the mission that would take the probe to several asteroids and comets. He spoke in the manner of a vacuum cleaner salesman and although he was funnin, it was a joy to hear. Anything to add there Bill? BTW Bill send me a message I need your snail mail address. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 23:55:07 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Ethics of Terraforming David Knapp writes: (Highly paraphrased...Let me know if I've mis-stated your postition, Dave) >Premise: We are hurting the Planet, to both our detriment, as well as Gaia's. >Premise: We can expect the same treatment, at the hands of Humans, for Mars. >Conclusion: We should not terraform Mars, until we can treat Gaia right. [followed by... >Rebuttals to Premise 1, including reference to population dynamics, various >predictions invloving fuel, food, politcal changes, geological theories, >car technology, technology change in general... >... >degenrating into name-calling (Mathus is a..), references to drug use, astral >projection, voting republican, etc by both sides. I feel the point has been missed entirely. The argument put forth by Dave hinges not on the premise that the Earth is being damaged, (I believe it is, BTW, though not to the extent many (loudly) proclaim) but on the premise that we can hurt Mars. Here on Earth, we can only hurt live things. Whether it's us, or your favorite animal, or Gaia herself, our ability to destroy ends with life-less things. We can't hurt rock. Even large, red, pretty-to-look at rock. Perhaps Mars has life already. So what? Anything we do will increase the amount of life on Mars, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better suited to living on Mars than anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve. Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life. Again, so what? We can predict that it's natural course would be to eventually grow more complex, through the mechanism of evolution. But we would bring already-complex stuff along, speeding the process, to the enourmous benefit of life itself. So Dave's argument is moot. By his own criteria (damage to life) we are powerless to hurt anything or anyone by terra-forming Mars. So his second premise is the false one (though the first may be, as well. See the previous week's posts for the lengthly arguments referenced above) If Dave takes the less-general, but more defendable, 'damage to people' criteria, then it turns out he is arguing FOR the Terra-forming of Mars, as it would 'hurt' us more not to have a livable Mars. Sadly, he posted contradictorally to his own position, leading him to take 'damage to humans' as the actual criteria for his argument, as many greens often do. Kind of depressing, really. At least his argument escapes unscathed. An example; >>When we do run out of fossil fuels, I'm sure I won't see you shoving to get >>an electric car because you were so convinced it wouldn't be an issue. I hope >>you like the bus. Unfortunately, electric cars depend on energy even more than fossil-fuel cars, as they are less efficient (from the orignal source) than oil-powered cars now. To really get pollution-advantages from electric cars requires a new energy source, not a new way of using more coal and oil. Naturally, gov. has instituted legislation to the effect that people must drive electric (emmission-free) cars in some cities by a certain date. And this at the request, nay, demand, of people trying to slow pollution and energy use. Double-speaking of saving the environment... >Like I said, Saturn's rings are off-limits, and I'll add Halley's comet to the >protected list :) I think you should jump in a lake, like, say, Lake Michigan. Quite symbolic, as the rings of Saturn will one day be the cheapest source of water in the solar system. But I'll back you up on the Comet :-) >>No, really, I see what you're saying, until we see that it is a problem, >>we should not worry about it. Good strategy. Here's a problem (that is quite demonstrable); People using up lots and lots of non-sustainable resources trying to save resources that are allegedly limited. If you believe they are limited, you shouldn't advocate known resource wasters: Totalitariansim, 'socialistic-market economies' (that's oxymoron, to you and me :-), and gov. monopoly power. >Now, if population growth is such a bad thing, will you be the first one to >castrate yourself so as to slow the rate of growth? Will you be the first to >hang yourself in order to save the ecosystem? No, but he will probably feel no qualms about castrating (hurting) you and me through the use of legislation and taxing power that bear no relation to actual environmental problems or solutions. As you would expect, from a philosophy that takes 'damage to (other) humans' as a value. Notice to all Greens: If your values do not rest on the "what's good for us" criteria, you will be the problem, not a solution. -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 03:42:01 GMT From: Kazuo Yoshida NASDA/TKSC Subject: Informing Oppotunity of Utilization JEM Newsgroups: sci.space INFORMING OPPORTUNITY OF UTILIZING JEM September 1 , 1992 NASDA HQ Tokyo Japan The National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) is going to invite the Japanese research organizations and Japanese researchers, etc. to join the first opportunity to use the JEM (Japanese Experiment Module) expected for 1998 as principal investigators. The research organizations and researchers in overseas are granted an opportunity to be a co-investigator. The following is the detailed information on the above public subscription : 1. Scope of Public Subscription : Mainly material processing and life sciences. 2. Experiment Equipments to be loaded : Material Processing : Soaking Furnace/Gradient Heating Furnace/Band Furnace/Fluid Physics Experiment Equipment (=Facility)/Solution Growth Experiment Equipment Life Sciences : Cell Culture Equipment/Protein Crystal Growth Equipment/Clean Bench 3. Period of Public Subscription : Starting Application Form Distribution : October 1 , 1992 Tentative Closing Date : October 20 , 1992 Official Closing Date : from the end of November until the middle of December , 1992 (Please refer to the application from for detailed information). The Space Station , "Freedom" will be man's first permanent home in space. Scheduled for completion in the late 1990's the Space Station will consist of four manned units - the Habitation Module (U.S.A.) , the Laboratory Module (U.S.A) , the Columbus Module (ESA) and the Japanese Experiment Module (Japan) - and unmanned platforms for experimental and observation purposes. The U.S is also responsible for the Station's truss and electric power module , while Canada will provide its Mobile Servicing Center. The JEM to be provided by NASDA will consist of three major sections - the Pressurized Module , the Experimental Logistics Module and the Exposed Facility or inspace work platform - and receive power , water and data transmission and reception services from the Space Station's power module. It is believed that NASDA's participation in this project will help provide the experience and know-how vital to Japan's space programs in the 21st century. Contact Points : Mutsuhiko Masuda (Mr.) Eijiro Hirohama (Mr.) Yoko Inomata (Ms.) Kaori Sasaki (Ms.) Public Relations Div. External Relations Dept. NASDA HQ Tokyo Japan Tel : +81-3-5470-4283 Fax : +81-3-5470-4130 E-mail: NSAVAX::JEMAO JEMAO@rd.tksc.nasda.go.jp ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 01:35:24 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >> The space suits would be designed >>from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS. > >Nick, talk to _anyone_ who know's what they're talking about and you'll see >that new suits are high on the list of required technology for the Moon. Indeed, Nick's naivete is shown by his suggestion of using the shuttle suits on the Moon. Their legs are not flexible enough (they are considerably less flexible than the Apollo-suit legs) and their center of gravity is too far aft. They are free-fall suits, not surface suits. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 00:20:51 GMT From: Glen K Moore Subject: new name for NASA? Newsgroups: sci.space In the Sun Herald (Sydney) on 13th September NASA's name was stated as meaning North American Space Agency. Since this appeared in an article by Peter Pockley on a two page 'Science and Education ' column and appeared very authoritative perhaps NASA has changed its name? But then again perhaps it is just newspaper carelessness. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 01:48:25 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: new name for NASA? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep13.002051.8574@cc.uow.edu.au> gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore) writes: > In the Sun Herald (Sydney) on 13th September NASA's name was stated as > meaning North American Space Agency. > Since this appeared in an article by Peter Pockley on a two page 'Science > and Education ' column and appeared very authoritative perhaps NASA has > changed its name? But then again perhaps it is just newspaper carelessness. 'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea. Since we have a North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine our efforts in space as well. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 04:25:16 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: new name for NASA? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep13.014825.10331@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >> ... North American Space Agency. > >'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea. Since we have a >North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine >our efforts in space as well. The main problem with this would be the "elephant among the chickens" syndrome. The other North American nations aren't going to buy into a "combined effort" where the US makes all the decisions, while the US is not going to be interested in a "one nation, one vote" policy unless the budget shares are also equal, which the others can't afford. Canada actually has already figured out what it wants to do about this: it is an associate member of the European Space Agency ("associate" because only European nations can be full members). -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:18:15 GMT From: tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options Newsgroups: sci.space Joshua Bell writes: > I can imagine a slingshot (ignoring the fact that you're going against > the orbit - can you slingshot that way?) Sure. > Question for the real experts: > > A few years back I remember seeing tentative 'maps' of Pluto, > based on observing the spectrum of the Pluto-Charon system during > the eclipse cycle. The maps were rather simple - large white ice > caps, a redish-brown surface, a large black/brown spot on one > side, and a smaller white spot on the other. Is there any > planning of the probe's to take advantage of what little we know > about Pluto and 'aiming' for these spots, as the probe will > likely shoot past, not wait around 6 days (?) for Pluto to > revolve? We've just published the next generation of Pluto-Charon surface albedo maps. Check a recent issue of Icarus. The actual imaging sequence would be determined by the imaging science team, and there's no guarantee that the actual team would be composed of any members of the Outer Planets Science Working Group, which is the group currently working on the flyby mission plans. I can say that it would be crazy to NOT take advantage of what we know about the location of surface features. Furthermore, the second spacecraft would be delayed to allow knowledge of the first flyby to be used to influence the detailed imaging sequence of the second. Both spacecraft will image the entire surface, though one shouldn't think of it as "waiting around" for six days. The resolution of the hemisphere opposite the one seen at closest approach would not be all that great, but useful enough to influence the decision-making process for the second spacecraft. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:24:54 GMT From: tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options Newsgroups: sci.space Shawn McCarthy writes: > Has the possibility of a light-sail been looked into? use it for accelleration > from the 'bright' area near the earth, then brake off Jupiter's light... (more > complex than that, but thats the general idea)... Jupiter's light is nothing more than reflected sunlight (at least at visible wavelengths), and since half of Jupiter is in darkness, there's not much to use once you get past Jupiter, which is only one-sixth of the travel distance under optimum alignment. The effiency of a light-sail drops off with the square of the distance from the Sun, rendering it impractical for an outer Solar System mission (unless you want to make it ENORMOUS, but NASA won't be too keen on a deployable anything). ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 01:03:06 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: RL-10 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep12.145556.21649@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>...because in both cases the problem was that the engine failed >>to fire, not go boom. So all DCX need is enough engines for an engine >>out capability >On Atlas' first flight, June 11, 1957, it went boom. On Atlas-Centaur's >first flight, May 8, 1962 the Centaur went boom.... Sure they go boom. If one does, the crew will die. If you have a problem with that, we can all be thankful that you whern't around in the early days of avation. For the state of the art, they are a hell of a lot more reliable than aircraft where at a similar time. That's good enough. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------224 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 01:37:47 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: RL-10 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep13.010306.5063@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >Sure they go boom. If one does, the crew will die. If you have >a problem with that, we can all be thankful that you whern't >around in the early days of avation. Jerry Pournelle claims to have told Quayle, in the course of selling him on SSX (the project that, somewhat mutated, became Delta Clipper), that he didn't want astronauts flying it -- he wanted test pilots. Why? Because "astronauts are national treasures", and if you kill one, your program grinds to a halt for a couple of years. If you kill a test pilot, you name a street after him at Edwards, and carry on flying. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 01:01:59 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Rocket Clones Newsgroups: sci.space Much of the high price of space launches comes from the complexity of integrating the rocket and payload, and the extra effort needed to develop many kinds of payload interfaces, fairing sizes, fuel loads, and engine performance levels. Both the cost of the launcher and the cost of the satellite are impacted. There are currently over a dozen different kinds of payload dimensions and interfaces in common use. This has several consequences: * once a satellite is designed, it is expensive or impossible to switch launchers, for example if it proves unreliable or its schedule is delayed * there are few standard, mass-produced parts that can be used across different kinds of launchers and satellites * there is no standard for training technicians * it is difficult for new launch technology to enter the market, because satellite builders must be convinced to custom-design satellites for the new, more risky technology In the Earth surface freight business, cargo carriers have standardized on truck-trailer sized containers that can be put on trains and ships. A good chunk of our planet's cargo now goes around in these things, with large gains in economy. In contrast, the launch industry is a mess, with each government and even each agency within government pursuing its own narrow-minded strategy. I suggest that two standards be developed for small (c. 500 kg to LEO) and medium-sized (c. 3,000 kg to LEO) launchers. The standards would specify payload dimensions, and most of the payload/launcher interfaces. All patents essential to implementing the standards would be made available to the general industry with no royalty. The USAF and Martin Marietta have pursued the cloning strategy at the high end of the market with Titan 4, whose payload fairings and interfaces are designed to carry Shuttle payloads, while using old Titan and new ALS expendable rocket technology. This gives the USAF the flexibility of being able to switch launchers in reaction to scheduling delays or reliability problems. As a result, this kind of payload is becoming the high-end market standard. Space investors should discuss these ideas with their companies, and space advocates should make rocket standards a priority on their agenda. Cargo standards will bring open systems and commodity hardware to the launch business; decreasing costs and increasing the infusion of new technology. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 02:58:00 GMT From: University Space Society Subject: Rocket Clones Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep13.010159.8943@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes... > >Much of the high price of space launches comes from the complexity >of integrating the rocket and payload, and the extra effort needed >to develop many kinds of payload interfaces, fairing sizes, fuel loads, >and engine performance levels. Both the cost of the launcher and the >cost of the satellite are impacted. > >There are currently over a dozen different kinds of payload dimensions >and interfaces in common use. This has several consequences: > >* once a satellite is designed, it is expensive or impossible > to switch launchers, for example if it proves unreliable > or its schedule is delayed >* there are few standard, mass-produced parts that can be used > across different kinds of launchers and satellites >* there is no standard for training technicians >* it is difficult for new launch technology to enter the market, > because satellite builders must be convinced to custom-design > satellites for the new, more risky technology Nick you might want to check out the market a little more carefully. Hughes 3 series and the 6 series can be launched on a variety of different vehicles. (Long March, Atlas, Arianne, Titan) There are standards in place that allow this type of switching, mixing and matching. Some of the Hughes sats that were recovered from orbit by the Shuttle have been re-launched by other unmanned vehicles. Also there are several parts such as transponders, attitude control systems, propellant tanks that can and are being used on many different satellites. For example, the stuck antenna on Galaleio (sp) are copies of the TDRSS antennas (none of them have gotten stuck). The risk in the new technology is not so much that things would have to be redesigned but is a psychological reflex to anything that is unknown. For example, the Boeing tandem solar cells are direct replacements to the outside world for standard silicon cells. The problem is in the perception of managemnt that this technology is not "proven", therefore ipso facto it is a risk beyond which they will accept. [stuff deleted] >Space investors should discuss these ideas with their companies, and >space advocates should make rocket standards a priority on their >agenda. Cargo standards will bring open systems and commodity hardware >to the launch business; decreasing costs and increasing the infusion of This is a good idea that is in progress now and will accelerate in the years ahead. To further cut costs however, a rethinking of the way business is done is in order. Many of the procedures and component selection guidelines that are standard operating procedure in both the military and commercial and NASA world are no longer valid due to the march of technology in mass production testing of commercial electronic components for example. We can do it faster cheaper and better. A reduction by a factor of two to four in the cost of electronics alone is a conservative estimate for the next ten years in satellites. Interface issues are becoming less and less of an issue. What is needed is to lower the labor cost in assembling a booster. It is clear that in countries that have lower labor costs (Russia, China) the costs of the launchers is radically lower. The only way we can reduce labor costs is by cutting the amount of labor required per unit of launch vehicle. This is why I push the baby Saturn and reject the path of the Titan V and HLV Delta and Atlas. Did any of you know that the original Saturns were robotically welded for the very large pieces of the structure? Interesting isn't it. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 03:33:23 GMT From: Jay Maynard Subject: STS-47 element set JSC-006: orbit 5, flight day 1 Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle FROM: G.L.CARMAN SUBJECT: STS-47 element set JSC-006 (orbit 5) STS-47 1 22120U 92 61 A 92256.84827988 .00035000 00000-0 26700-3 0 68 2 22120 57.0027 106.4342 0009709 280.5761 79.4195 15.89094234 59 Satellite: STS-47 Catalog number: 22120 Epoch time: 92256.84827988 -----> (12 SEP 92 20:21:31.38 UTC) Element set: JSC-006 Inclination: 57.0027 deg RA of node: 106.4342 deg Space Shuttle Flight STS-47 Eccentricity: .0009709 SGP4 Keplerian Elements Arg of perigee: 280.5761 deg from NASA flight Day 1 vector Mean anomaly: 79.4195 deg Mean motion: 15.89094234 rev/day W5RRR Decay rate: 3.5000e-04 rev/day*2 NASA Johnson Space Center Epoch rev: 5 G.L.CARMAN -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 92 21:49:55 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Technology development Newsgroups: sci.space In article <78LqqB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes: >Clearly, this is feasible. I suggest people try defining some prizes. Here are a couple that could get us quite a ways: * $2 billion for 5,000 tons of propellant-ready ice delivered to GTO (that's $400/kg, to be accomplished either by launch from Earth or native ice, whichever is more competitive). This could be used in deep-space upper stages, lunar base supply, space manufacturing, Mars missions, on-orbit strategic propellant reserve, etc. * $2 billion for 5,000 tons of propellant-ready ice delivered to Mars orbit, for Mars mission landing and return propellant and shielding. This would cut Earth-launched mass for Mars missions up to an order of magnitude, saving $10's of billions. Given $4 billion in garunteed revenue, over twenty other markets which I've identified, a high-Isp upper stage, and a better state of space exploration, the ice extraction project I outlined earlier could be quite attractive commercially, with Ariane 5 proposed launch costs ($8,000/kg to GTO). I've also identified over 20 follow-on markets that could be served, so that the project would be facilitating commerce, not going in its own dead-end direction. This project would open up the solar system. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 92 00:55:59 GMT From: TS Kelso Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when possible). Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space. STS 47 1 22120U 92 61 A 92256.65956585 -.00000390 00000-0 00000+0 0 14 2 22120 56.9995 107.3006 0009560 279.4756 80.5384 15.89196901 06 -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 195 ------------------------------