Date: Sun, 23 May 93 05:23:22 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #616 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 23 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 616 Today's Topics: Camera falling from space for Home Movies!? Combo-Propulsion Systems? Earth to Mars Shuttle and cost!? Hey Philly! Re: Why Government? Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (4 msgs) Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) 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: 23 May 93 07:29:38 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Camera falling from space for Home Movies!? Newsgroups: sci.space Wierd idea time: How hard would it be to design, build and get on the shuttle a television camera package that would be ejected into orbit to enter the atmosphere in such a way to get pictures on its way down?? Namely for an episode of 'home movies' or other like shows.. I bet it owuld be a cool thing to watch the TV camera package falling to burn up (in a safe place)... == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 07:43:01 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Combo-Propulsion Systems? Newsgroups: sci.space Qierd question time: What propulsion systems seem to compliment each other? Is there a plan to combined the two systems into a extertrerrestial probe? or Solar System Probe? Also what propulsion systems are there and there good as well as bad sides.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 93 06:59:21 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: Earth to Mars Shuttle and cost!? Newsgroups: sci.space Wierd question time again! What would be cheaper, having a 'shuttle' or a 'lander' or a 'DC-X' to land on Mars? Im not talking a one time event, I'm talking taking off from Earth, then fly to Mars and land.. a real 'shuttle' basically a Earth to Mars Shuttle. Or would it be better to have a shuttle to orbit, 'mars shuttle' and then a lander on Mars.. (A three step even).. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 93 06:53:47 GMT From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Hey Philly! Re: Why Government? Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: I had originally posted: >>BTW, I'm not republican (as someone seemed to infer). I'm a conservative >>democrat. Don't misconstrue my arguments, I'm for space shuttle because >>its the most sophisticated and best example of American technology in the >>air-space field. Philly wrote: >Tell a lie often enough, and maybe someone will beleive it... I hope you aren't calling me a liar, but then again you probably would resort to name-calling instead of focusing on issues. This only shows how weak your arguments are. I had written: >>shuttle is the best piece of hardware we've got. If shuttle haters get >>their way, we'll be out of the manned space business for the rest of the >>century. boy (smirk), that'd be a great legacy wouldn't that? >>Back to the days of 1976-1979 when skylab fell and shuttle couldn't fly. >>Carter administration II...hope not! >We're out of the manned space exploration business now; have been since >1973. Where the hell were you? Gee, need I write more folks? I must've hit pretty close to home or something... have a nice day philly. ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 93 05:52:39 GMT From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >>Allen Sherzer posted data from: >"Use of Saturn V as an HLLV Option", a presentation before the House >Science Space Subcommittee by Ronald Harris of the NASA Office of Space >Flight on March 14, 1991. saying: >I think actual numbers are less important than capabilities and costs. >But accounted for the same way, Saturn would win hands down. Better >still, there are vehicles which could beat Saturn. I had posted the following: >>MASS CALCULATION >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>Saturn V mass to orbit: >>Mass of S-IV-B upper stage, LEM with shroud, C-SM and escape tower. Allen responded: >A restared Saturn would lift 260,000 pounds to LEO. That is the only >figure that matters. My calculation was: >>STS/shuttle mass to orbit: >>Mass of the orbiter plus payload in the bay. Allen sez: >The mass of the orbiter is a pointless thing to consider. A launcher which >lifted a million pounds to LEO but only one ounce of payload would win >your contest but would be a pretty useless operational launcher. ... >The only figures of merit are capability and cost. I agree that capability and cost are important. but, I disagree with your methodology. I have attempted to illustrate the engineering and technical merits of the orbiter (although some still refuse to acknowledge the feats performed by the shuttle). The orbiter's mass is not pointless to consider. If I really wanted to limit the discussion to payload, I could have counted the Command Module as the ultimate payload of the Saturn V! Clearly that is incorrect. so, the basis of my decision to include the orbiter's mass in the mass to LEO calculation is based on inclusion of the total mass injected into orbit by the launch system in question. The S-V vehicle put up the whole S-IV-B stage plus the LEM-CSM-escape tower. If all of those pieces are gonna get talleyed into the S-V mass to orbit figure, why shouldn't the orbiter's mass be talleyed in to LEO calc? It belongs in the calculation. I thought the place you would object to my calculations was in the cost area. But apparently you took a pass. BTW, where did you get the other figures in your post about estimates for shuttle manufacturing, Saturn V vehicles per copy, etc. I continue to believe that the Shuttle has the best payload to LEO record (i.e. most mass to LEO and most mass returned from LEO of any space vehicle) I am digging up the US Budgets and am planning to assess the NASA budgets for Saturn V and STS development. Would appreciate an available source detailing line-by-line NASA expenditures. References anyone? khayash ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 06:26:30 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1tn3f7$e4o@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >... The orbiter's mass is not pointless >to consider. If I really wanted to limit the discussion to payload, I could >have counted the Command Module as the ultimate payload of the Saturn V! Only if you postulated a mission well beyond Earth orbit, which the shuttle cannot fly at all. The orbiter's mass is dead weight, or pretty close to it, for cargo-hauling missions. Counting it as payload is inappropriate. >The S-V vehicle put up the whole S-IV-B stage plus the LEM-CSM-escape tower. >If all of those pieces are gonna get talleyed into the S-V mass to orbit >figure, why shouldn't the orbiter's mass be talleyed in to LEO calc? If I'm not mistaken, the figure that Allen quoted did *not* include the S-IVB mass. I've seen various figures for Saturn V payload to low orbit, depending on exactly what assumptions are made, but 260klbs of *payload* (no dead rocket stages or orbiter deadweight included) is about right. Skylab -- launched by the bottom two stages of a Saturn V -- weighed 200klbs, and its orbit was higher than the usual "nominal low orbit". >...believe that the Shuttle has the best payload to LEO record (i.e. >most mass to LEO and most mass returned from LEO of any space vehicle) As has been pointed out repeatedly, returned mass is a silly figure of merit -- nobody *cares* about returned mass, since there is no major requirement for returned mass. It's also a figure of merit that is guaranteed to be biased towards a system that inefficiently hauls many tons of hardware up and down and up and down and up and down. If we're tossing around biased figures of merit, try one that actually has some scientific importance: how many kilograms of lunar samples has the shuttle returned? And a claim of "most mass to LEO" for *any* Western launcher is silly, when the USSR/Russia has launched 1200+ "A" boosters, each with a payload of several tons to orbit. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 07:31:55 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1tn3f7$e4o@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: > > ...The orbiter's mass is not pointless >to consider. If I really wanted to limit the discussion to payload, I could >have counted the Command Module as the ultimate payload of the Saturn V! >Clearly that is incorrect. so, the basis of my decision to include the >orbiter's mass in the mass to LEO calculation is based on inclusion of the >total mass injected into orbit by the launch system in question. You're forgetting that a Saturn-V derived HLLV for LEO has only *two* stages: An S-IC and an S-II. That's all! With only two stages, a Saturn V put the entire 200,000 lb Skylab space station into a high inclination orbit... -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 07:37:36 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1tn3f7$e4o@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >>"Use of Saturn V as an HLLV Option", a presentation before the House >>Science Space Subcommittee by Ronald Harris of the NASA Office of Space >>Flight on March 14, 1991. >>The mass of the orbiter is a pointless thing to consider. A launcher which >>lifted a million pounds to LEO but only one ounce of payload would win >>your contest but would be a pretty useless operational launcher. >>The only figures of merit are capability and cost. >I agree that capability and cost are important. Good. They are in fact, all that matters for operational systems. What ISN'T important is complexity for the sake of complexity. Yet your praise for the Shuttle seems to be based entirely on that. >but, I disagree with >your methodology. I have attempted to illustrate the engineering >and technical merits of the orbiter If your into complexity for the sake of complexity, sure it's great. But I (to quote the bard) an but an engineer for the working day. I prefer simple machines since their cheaper and more reliable. Shuttle fails this criteria. >(although some still refuse to acknowledge >the feats performed by the shuttle). Nobody refused to acknowledge that. It's just that we want to see an active and growing space program. Shuttle is simply very destructive to that goal. You, on the other hand, seem happy with a space program where we spend billions finding out (yet again) what happens when ants, bees, or whatever get exposed to zero-G. All you seem to want is cute pictures of people floating around on CNN a few times a year. If that is indeed all you want, congrats, your there! Some of us however, want a lot more. >The orbiter's mass is not pointless to consider. Say you want to move to a new house. You ask two movers for estimates. Mover A offers to do it for $3,000. Mover B offers to do it for $9,000 but assures you that it's a bargin since his truck weighs a lot more than Mover A's truck so your actually moving more weight with him so cost per pound is lower. You seem to be saying you would give your $$ to mover B. Is that actually true? >If I really wanted to limit the discussion to payload, I could >have counted the Command Module as the ultimate payload of the Saturn V! No, we are comparing payload to LEO. If you want to compare payload to lunar orbit, that's another matter. >Clearly that is incorrect. so, the basis of my decision to include the >orbiter's mass in the mass to LEO calculation is based on inclusion of the >total mass injected into orbit by the launch system in question. Again, the figure of merit is PAYLOAD/pound to LEO, not MASS/pound to LEO. >The S-V vehicle put up the whole S-IV-B stage plus the LEM-CSM-escape tower. >If all of those pieces are gonna get talleyed into the S-V mass to orbit >figure, why shouldn't the orbiter's mass be talleyed in to LEO calc? I'm not including the S-IVB stage in the calculation. I am measuring payload and nothing more. For a half billion $$ you can sent 50,000 pounds to LEO with Shuttle or 250,000 to LEO with Saturn. >It belongs in the calculation. I thought the place you would object to >my calculations was in the cost area. But apparently you took a pass. There's nothing to argue. Cost is: (Incrimental cost * flight rate) + (fixed costs/flight rate) + (development costs (including interest)/flight rate). All things equal, Shuttle is by a wide margine the most expensive way to put a pound into orbit. >BTW, where did you get the other figures in your post about estimates >for shuttle manufacturing, Saturn V vehicles per copy, etc. All Saturn costs came from the source named above. Shuttle 1985 development costs are from a presentation given to the Augustine Commission. Shuttle operations costs come from the NASA budget. >I continue >to believe that the Shuttle has the best payload to LEO record (i.e. >most mass to LEO Saturn is close and may or may not beat Shuttle. But if you want the record, I would say to talk to the Russians, they should have it hands down. >and most mass returned from LEO of any space vehicle) Since this mass is billion $$ hardware we haul up (at a cost of more billions) and use for a week or so just to haul it back down, I would be embarased to have that record. The real real record should go to the Russians since they store their experiments in space where they can be used instead of in a wharehouse collecting dust. >I am digging up the US Budgets and am planning to assess the NASA budgets >for Saturn V and STS development. Would appreciate an available source >detailing line-by-line NASA expenditures. References anyone? I already gave you the numbers but feel free to confirm them. 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." | +----------------------24 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 07:06:46 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: > delisle@hebron.connected.com (Ben Delisle 02/15/93) writes: > > >> Killing an ET would be legal as current law only states people, >>persons, men, women, children. An ET; however, is not classified or >>mentioned. They could be considered as animals (possibility plants) as they >>are non-human lifeforms and may be subject to animal protection laws, but >>not the same protection as humans. >> Knowing the general human attitude to other people(s) and >>even animals and their past behaviour, any contact with ET's will >>probably end up with us exploiting the ET's irreguardless of any >>technological advantage on their part. New levels of discrimination >>will be seen. > > What about going off the deep end away from government law and into > customary law? > > For instance: try shooting at a dolphin in my presence if _I_ have > a firearm too... or probably most people in the United States... > >>-- >>delisle@hebron.connected.com >>A man's reputation may take many years of work to build, and be lost with >>a simple mistake. > -- > > Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, > pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary > > If I kill the dolphin and you kill me, Id have commited a minor felony (basically killing a protected 'animal') and you would be brought up possibly on manslaughter chargers. (after all I was in the act of a crime). But killing a Extra-Terrestial I doubt you would be brought up on charges, but it is possible, depending on the current mood in the world and such.. and wether people knew about it.. If the ET was in the act of firing on you, you'd might be a HERO. You might be brought up on charges or atleast hated by the general populous if you killed a non-beligerent ET. Of course the whole matter migth be swept under the carpet and the common good would be maintained. That is if the ET family/nation did not want your hide for breakfast. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 616 ------------------------------