Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 05:21:31 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #477 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 23 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 477 Today's Topics: Boom! Whoosh...... (2 msgs) Commercial mining activities on the moon (3 msgs) First Spacewalk Iapetus/Saturn Eclipse Level 5 Moonbase race (2 msgs) NAVSTAR positions Proton/Centaur? (2 msgs) Sunrise/ sunset times Vandalizing the sky. What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? Which Gehrels? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?) Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents? 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: 21 Apr 1993 19:19:43 GMT From: "David M. Palmer" Subject: Boom! Whoosh...... Newsgroups: sci.space matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >In article <1993Apr21.024423.29182@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes: >>I hear that it will supposedly coincide >>with the Atlanta Olympics. >Even worse, the city of Atlanta has a proposal before it to rent space on this >orbiting billboard. Considering the caliber of people running this city, >there's no telling what we're going to have leering down at us from orbit. I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital velocity. For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth, you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s. Assuming that rockets with specific impulses of 300 seconds are easy to produce, a rocket with a dry weight of 50 kg would require only about 65 kg of fuel+oxidizer. A small dispersal charge embedded in about 20 kg of sand or birdshot (depending on the nature of the structure) would be the payload. I am sure the whole project is well within the capability of the amateur rocketry community. It sounds like a good Science Fair project--'Reduction of Light Pollution Through Applied Ballistics'. Or, it could be part of the Challenge Prize being discussed here: $1 billion for the first person to spend 1 year on the moon, $1 million for the first erradication of an orbital eyesore/CCD burner. I wouldpledge $1000 for the first person to bring it down, and I am sure there are at least 999 other astronomers, nature lovers, or just plain people of good taste who would do likewise. Of course, a Gerald Bull solution might be simpler. (Either the solution Gerald Bull would apply--the use of a large caliber gun; or the solution which was applied to Gerald Bull--the use of a small caliber gun.) -- David M. Palmer palmer@alumni.caltech.edu palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 21:58:10 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Boom! Whoosh...... Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1r46ofINNdku@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes: >>orbiting billboard... > >I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an >object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital >velocity. For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth, >you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s. Assuming that rockets with specific >impulses of 300 seconds are easy to produce, a rocket with a dry >weight of 50 kg would require only about 65 kg of fuel+oxidizer... Unfortunately, if you launch this from the US (or are a US citizen), you will need a launch permit from the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and I think it may be difficult to get a permit for an antisatellite weapon... :-) The threshold at which OCST licensing kicks in is roughly 100km. (The rules are actually phrased in more complex ways, but that is the result.) -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 93 10:28:57 PDT From: Charlie Prael Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon Newsgroups: sci.space dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are > there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.) Paul-- for the same reason that many other colonies are founded. Why not? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charlie Prael - dante@shakala.com Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 1993 19:16:51 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon Newsgroups: sci.space In article , steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-) Sherzer Methodology!!!!!! Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it? -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 93 15:23:44 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1r46j3INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: In article , steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-) Sherzer Methodology!!!!!! Hell, yes. I'm not going to let a bunch of seven suits tell me what the right way to estimate cost effectiveness is, at least not until they can make their mind up long enough to leave their scheme stable for a fiscal year or two. Seriously though. If you were to ask the British government whether their colonisation efforts in the Americas were cost effective, what answer do you think you'd get? What if you asked in 1765, 1815, 1865, 1915 and 1945 respectively? ;-) * Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory * * steinly@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" * * If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness * * Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best! * * Go motoring on The A13! - BB 1983 * ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 19:06:08 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: First Spacewalk Newsgroups: sci.space In article flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes: >At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk >(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake. > >Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ? > >Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ? This claim was made when someone spotted training film footage spliced into the footage of the actual spacewalk. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 1993 23:18 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Iapetus/Saturn Eclipse Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from John Spencer (spencer@lowell.edu): There will be two eclipses of Iapetus by Saturn and its rings, in May and July. Please spread the word! Here's some information about the events, and then a couple of messages from Jay Goguen of JPL appealing for thermal observations of the eclipse to learn more about the thermal properties of Iapetus. He might also have some money available... John Spencer, 1993/04/21 Iapetus will be eclipsed by the shadows of Saturn's rings and Saturn itself on 1993/05/01-02 (18:27-13:43 UT) and again on 1993/07/20-21, (21:16-09:38 UT). Timing is as follows; 1993 May 1-2 A-ring ingress 18:27 egress 19:30 B-ring ingress 19:51 egress 21:42 C-ring egress 23:00 Saturn ingress 23:59 egress 10:02 B-ring ingress 10:28 egress 12:19 A-ring ingress 12:40 egress 13:43 1993 July 20-21 Saturn ingress 21:16 egress 05:08 A-ring ingress 05:13 (grazing) egress 09:38 Times could be 30 minutes later according to an alternate ephemeris, and photometric observations are important for refining Iapetus' orbit. Because the Sun's size projected on the rings as seen from Iapetus is 3100 km it's unlikely that we will learn anything new about the rings themselves from the observations. See Soma (1992), Astronomy and Astrophysics 265, L21-L24 for more details. Thanks to Andy Odell of Northern Arizona University for bringing the events to my attention. THERMAL OBSERVATIONS? Jay Goguen (jdg@scn5.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) writes: To me, the interesting thing to do would be thermal IR of the 20 July disappearance into the shadow of the planet to measure thermal inertia, etc. Unfortunately, the 21:30 UT of this event renders it inaccessible, except from Russia. Even from Calar Alto, Saturn is rising through 3 airmasses at 23:00 UT. Do you know anyone in Russia or Ukraine with a big telescope and 10 um instrumentation that's looking for something to do? I'd be willing to make a personal grant of >$100 for the data. Jay and again: please try to encourage anyone that can observe the iapetus planet disappearance to do so at thermal wavelengths. My impression would be that it's not an easy observation. Iapetus will be faint and getting fainter in eclipse, so you'll need a big telescope that's a good IR telescope and reasonable 10 - 20 um instrumentation. I don't think that combination is widely available at the longitudes that are well placed for observation. We need SOFIA for this one. One possibility would be the IR telescope in India, but it's only a 1.2 m. jay ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | part vegetable. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 00:19:43 GMT From: nathan wallace Subject: Level 5 Newsgroups: sci.space According to a Software engineering professor here, what was actually rated level five was an ibm unit which produced part of the software for the shuttle, by not means all of it. Interesting note: 90% of the software development groups surveyed were at level 1. The ibm shuttle groups was the *only* one at level 5! --- C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/ C/ Nathan F. Wallace C/C/ "Reality Is" C/ C/ e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu C/C/ ancient Alphaean proverb C/ C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 20:49:41 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Moonbase race Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the >U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? Why would you want to do that? The goal is to do it cheaper (remember, this isn't government). Instead of leasing an expensive launch pad, just use a SSTO and launch from a much cheaper facility. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------56 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 1993 19:19:37 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Moonbase race Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited >technology base... and on government contracts. Just doing it privately, >rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several. So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida? Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it? -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 1993 18:23:05 -0400 From: Pat Subject: NAVSTAR positions Newsgroups: sci.space C-3's bird may be flaking out and expecting to die soon. or C-3 may orbit over major users areas, and it may be needed to provide redundancy on that plane while b-4 may orbit over hicksville, and not have muc of a user community. pat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 19:01:56 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Proton/Centaur? Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: >Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo? >What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other >than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)? I haven't seen any speculation about it. But, the Salyut KB (Design Bureau) was planning a new LH/LOX second stage for the Proton which would boost payload to LEO from about 21000 to 31500 kg. (Geostationary goes from 2600 kg. (Gals launcher version) to 6000 kg.. This scheme was competing with the Energia-M last year and I haven't heard which won, except now I recently read that the Central Specialized KB was working on the successor to the Soyuz booster which must be the Energia-M. So the early results are Energia-M won, but this is a guess, nothing is very clear in Russia. I'm sure if Salyut KB gets funds from someone they will continue their development. The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now. Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track and erected on the pad? They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads (unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 02:29:23 GMT From: "H. D. Stevens" Subject: Proton/Centaur? Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space In article <1993Apr21.190156.7769@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes: |> In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: |> >Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo? |> >What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other |> >than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)? |> |> |> The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton |> is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D |> which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about |> launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which |> are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things |> up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile |> thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now. |> Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know |> how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while |> bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track |> and erected on the pad? The Centaur that is being built for T4 would be a better bet to integrate onto the Proton as the T4/Centaur is designed for the Extremely Harsh envorinment of the T4 launch. It is also closer to 4 m in diameter. You've hit on the real kicker, however. The Centaur is pressure stabilized. It cannot hold up its own weight without pressure in the tanks. Additionally, the pressure difference between the two tanks must be maintained to ~+/- 5 psi. That is rather tight to be rocking and rolling on the train. The pressure stabilization is how centaur achieves the performance. On numerous occasions (when I was there 88-91) the AF wanted to see what it would take to make a non-pressure stabilized centaur. The answer -- a centaur not worth launching. The Atlas/Centaur does not require on-pad integration, however the T4/Centaur does. I believe the on-pad integration is to a great extent due to the cleanliness requirements and PFL configuration, so maybe something can be done there........ |> |> They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads |> (unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course |> any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the |> US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political |> problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention. The addition of LOX/LH facilities is critical as the centaur tops off as it lifts off. A LHe facility is also needed. I don't know what the proton uses for fuel, but since they are derived from ICBM's I would suspect that they use storable propellants which don't have the ullage problem that cryo's do. If there is no cryo at the sight at all, the addition of these systems could be big $$, not to mention the real tech transfer issues involved with providing centaur GSE to Russia. That issue alone might be enough to kill this idea. -- H.D. Stevens Stanford University Email:hdsteven@sun-valley.stanford.edu Aerospace Robotics Laboratory Phone: (415) 725-3293 (Lab) Durand Building (415) 722-3296 (Bullpen) Stanford, CA 94305 Fax: (415) 725-3377 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 93 14:18:24 GMT From: Joseph Wetstein Subject: Sunrise/ sunset times Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.math,sci.space Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used to compute sunrise and sunset times. I would appreciate any advice. Joe Wetstein jpw@coe.drexel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 93 16:28:00 GMT From: Todd Johnson Subject: Vandalizing the sky. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes: ;From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research: ; ;........ ;WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993 Washington, DC ; ;1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED? ;What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that ;it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night). ;Is NASA really supporting this junk? ;Are protesting groups being organized in the States? ;Really, really depressed. ; ; Enzo I wouldn't worry about it. There's enough space debris up there that a mile-long inflatable would probably deflate in some very short period of time (less than a year) while cleaning up LEO somewhat. Sort of a giant fly-paper in orbit. Hmm, that could actually be useful. As for advertising -- sure, why not? A NASA friend and I spent one drunken night figuring out just exactly how much gold mylar we'd need to put the golden arches of a certain American fast food organization on the face of the Moon. Fortunately, we sobered up in the morning. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 93 00:30:29 GMT From: Charles Chung Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will > >be significant commerical activity on the Moon? > > Wishful thinking mostly. [Lots of stuff about how the commerical moonbase=fantasyland] Then what do you believe will finally motivate people to leave the earth? I'm not trying to flame you. I just want to know where you stand. -Chuck --- ******************************************************************* Chuck Chung (919) 660-2539 (O) Duke University Dept. of Physics (919) 684-1517 (H) Durham, N.C. 27706 cchung@phy.duke.edu "If pro is the opposite of con, then what is the opposite of progress?" ******************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 93 14:37:23 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Which Gehrels? (was Re: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993Apr21.170817.15845@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > >> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were: > > Thanks again. One final question. The name Gehrels wasn't known to > me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American > has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil > Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. > Same person? I would guess not. Dr. Neil Gehrels of CGRO is the son of Dr. Tom Gehrels of the University of Arizona. Since he's long had research interests in asteroids and other solar-system astronomy, Tom is the one more likely to have discovered a comet (and thus had his name attached to it). Tom Gehrels is a leader in the Spacewatch project, which has recently increased mankind's discovery rate on near-Earth asteroids (they're finding a couple every month). For much more on this interesting guy, read his autobiography, *On a Glassy Sea*. "Do you know the asteroids, Mr.Kemp?... Bill Higgins Hundreds of thousands of them. All wandering around the Sun in strange Fermilab orbits. Some never named, never charted. The orphans of the Solar higgins@fnal.fnal.gov System, Mr. Kemp." higgins@fnal.bitnet "And you want to become a father." --*Moon Zero Two* SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 93 22:25:17 GMT From: Craig Keithley Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr21.150545.24058@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) wrote: > > In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > >>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is > >>enough to do it if the vehicle exists. > > >Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough > >to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation. Of > >course, they may be over-optimistic. > > In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their > cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO > is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience > base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as > much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G > range. > For the purpose of a contest, I'd bet some things could be cut. Like fuel for re-entry, any kind of heat shielding, etc., etc. Even still, if the contest participants had to fund DC-1 development, it probably wouldn't be worth it to develop DC-1 (just for the contest). Just give me the cheapest heaviest lift man rated (or at least under 6 or so Gs) booster... If I don't have to pay for DC-1 development, great!, I'll use it. But back to the contest goals, there was a recent article in AW&ST about a low cost (it's all relative...) manned return to the moon. A General Dynamics scheme involving a Titan IV & Shuttle to lift a Centaur upper stage, LEV, and crew capsule. The mission consists of delivering two unmanned payloads to the lunar surface, followed by a manned mission. Total cost: US was $10-$13 billion. Joint ESA(?)/NASA project was $6-$9 billion for the US share. I didn't find a mention of how long the crew could stay, but I'd bet that its around 30 days. And the total payload delivered was about 30 metric tonnes. So if you ignore the scientific payload, hitch a ride in the crew habitation module (no return trip...), and toss in a few more tonnes for the additional consumables to last another 11 months, then you *might* be able to get a year visit out of 15 tonnes (and in case its not obvious, that's a wild ass guess). A pretty boring visit, since every trip outdoors eats up a bit of LOX. And I'm not certain if a home brewed (or college-brewed) life support system could last a year. But let's round this up to 19.4 tonnes (convient, since the GD plan talks about 9.7 ton payloads delivered to the lunar surface. This adds up to two Centaurs, two LEVs, two Shuttle flights... All to put a single man on the moon for a year. Hmmm. Not really practical. Anyone got a cheaper/better way of delivering 15-20 tonnes to the lunar surface within the decade? Anyone have a more precise guess about how much a year's supply of consumables and equipment would weigh? And I was wondering about the GD LEV. Is it reusable? Or is it discarded to burn up on return to LEO? If its not discarded, could it be refueled? Henry: Do you know anything about the GD LEV? I noted that it uses RL-10 engines. Aren't they reusable/restartable? Would a LEV fit in a DC-1? I've forgotten (if I ever knew) what the cargo bay dimensions are for the DC-1. All in all, I'm not certain that the single goal/prize of staying on the moon for a year is wise and/or useful. How about: A prize for the first non-government sponsered unmanned moon landing, then another for a manned moon landing, then yet another for a system to extract consumables from lunar soil, another for a reusable earth/moon shuttle, and so forth. Find some way to build civilian moonbase infrastructure... Having a single goal might result in a bunch of contestents giving up after one person appeared to win. And for those that didn't give up, I find something a little scary about a half dozen people huddling in rickety little moon shelters. I'd like to see as much a reward for co-operation as for competition. Lastly, about ten or fifteen years back I seem to recall that there was an English space magazine that had an on-going discussion about moonbases on the cheap. I recalled it discussed things like how much heat the human body produced, how much lunar material it'd need for protection from solar flares, etc. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of this magazine. Does this ring a bell to anyone? Craig Keithley |"I don't remember, I don't recall, Apple Computer, Inc. |I got no memory of anything at all" keithley@apple.com |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 1993 18:36:42 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-long moon residents? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr21.150545.24058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: |In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: | | |In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their |cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO |is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience |base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as |much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G |range. > Alan, don't forget, a HUGE cost for airliner developement is FAA certification. the joke is when the paperwork exceeds teh weight of the airplane, it will fly. The SR-71, and teh X-15 both highly ambitious aero-space projects were done on very narrow engineering budgets. Partly because they didn't spend much on paper pushing. There is some company in missouri trying to get funding to build light commercial transporters on a low cost basis, mostly by reducing FAA certification costs. pat ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 477 ------------------------------