Date: Mon, 24 May 93 05:00:09 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #617 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 24 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 617 Today's Topics: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) (4 msgs) Camera falling from space for Home Movies!? DC-X info? Earth to Mars Shuttle and cost!? Galileo Update - 05/21/93 Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Moon Base Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) (3 msgs) murder in space SDIO kaput! SDI RIP. So what happens to DC? Space Marketing would be wonderfull. 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 1993 12:18:54 GMT From: John F Carr Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >These would be No Fun on surfaces intended to create lift. Yes, I >know there are tiles on the Shuttle wings; the Shuttle lifts like >a brick. (Trivia question: how fast would a Shuttle have to move >to actually gain altitude using only its wings?) The wings generate lift equal to shuttle weight in normal flight, more than that during the final turns and flare to landing. This is at speeds under 300 knots. 1g + epsilon is what it takes to climb. It isn't lack of lift that keeps the shuttle from climbing; it's excessive drag and insufficient thrust. A shuttle probably could be made to climb. Once. Briefly. After that the pilot gets to practice stall/spin recovery. (Has NASA developed spin recovery procedures for the shuttle? or does the book just say "don't do that"?) -- John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1993 11:48:14 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >I'm told that Boeing eventually decided to dispense with the SSME in the >tail, having discovered a better trick: inject liquid hydrogen (I think >it was) into the bypass ducts of the regular 747 engines, and burn it >there. The increase in thrust is tremendous, and apparently it doesn't >hurt the engines much if you only do it for 30 seconds per flight. I guess that makes Nitrous injection look pale :-) How would this differ from a conventional afterburner? And what a comment on robust engine design where you can do something this dramatically different and not collect on your life insurance. If they seriously boost thrust, did they have to rre-design the thrust pylons? Also what a trick for short field take off. really wow the crowds asa 747 fully loaded takes off, straight up :-) pat ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1993 11:52:51 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |The B-58 wasn't capable of Mach 3 even in a dash, and neither the SR-71 |nor the X-15 was made of aluminum. (The SR-71 was mostly titanium, and |the X-15 used titanium for its *low-temperature* structure plus various >refractory metals for the hot stuff.) How about the XB-70? pat ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 14:47:41 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >The crucial question is, are we talking about an operational transportation >system, or a low-duty-cycle research aircraft? Marginal approaches won't >cut it for operational transportation -- there you need safety margins >and fault tolerance. I have this rifle, it was built just before the turn of the century. It was designed to withstand 50,000 PSI of 4,000 degree gases for 2 to 3 milliseconds at a time. It will fail if exposed to as little as half a second of the same conditions. Does that make it marginal? Of course not, it's perfectly adequate for it's designed job, and has been for nearly a hundred years of service. The same thing applies here. The SST boost phase is of limited duration because of engine and fuel constraints. You'll run out of liquid hydrogen to dump in the engines long before the heat limits of the structure are reached. We are talking about taking a mach 2 SST and giving it a very short mach 3 dash capability after all. It's not expected to *sustain* such speeds. Even the simple aluminum honeycomb structures used on B-58 and B-70 should be adequate to the task. If you want overkill, substitute titanium for aluminum in the leading edges. >>... Active cooling for the necessary >>short dashes might be easiest, but even Shuttle tiles or thermal blankets >>might do for passive protection... > >Except that adding *external* insulation means throwing most of the old >aerodynamic test results in the garbage -- you're dealing with something >approaching a new aircraft. You don't just casually slap insulation on >the leading edge of a wing; the slightest change in leading-edge shape >makes a big difference to the aerodynamics. And a fatter leading edge, >in particular, is seriously bad news for supersonic drag. Then don't make the leading edge fatter. Keep the same airfoil, just recess the supports to handle the thicker tiles. (Not that I think tiles are the best answer, too porous, but it's feasible if you stay out of rainstorms.) After all, the *detail* design of the internal wing ribs for this SST *concept* vehicle hasn't been done. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 15:21:05 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Camera falling from space for Home Movies!? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May22.232938.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >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)... That's an interesting question, and relevant to some of the original SDI type scenarios. Terminal targeting through the plasma sheath formed during re-entry was a major concern of the "smart crowbar" strawman proposal. I haven't seen the details released, but apparently there are ways to do it. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 93 11:18:43 GMT From: "Kim B. Larsen" Subject: DC-X info? Newsgroups: sci.space Could anybody direct me toward some comprehensive info on the DC-X?! Kim Baumann Larsen, civil architect Oslo School of Architecture, Oslo, Norway email:kiml@aho.no ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 15:14:46 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Earth to Mars Shuttle and cost!? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May22.225921.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >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).. If the run is going to be regular, frequent, and continuing, I don't think there's much doubt that the latter 3 step option (with a station at each end to smooth scheduling and logistics) would be the best. Each piece can be optimized for it's very different mission profile. If there are to be only a few, or one, Mars missions, a Mars direct approach would be cheaper. Think of it like a railroad with piggyback terminals at each end rather than a fleet of over the road trucks. The former is more efficient if there is sufficient volume heading in the same direction. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1993 11:32:35 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Galileo Update - 05/21/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary about The HGA. I know it was left furled until post venus, because of therma concerns. but what exactly? the mesh, the focal elements?, the rods?????? I may have asked this before, but my short term memory doesn't work so well these days. thanks pat ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1993 17:13:45 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >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. According to Launch Vehicle Directory (Flight International Apr 13) Soyuz launcher hasbeen launched succesfully 994 times. Molniya launcher (four stage version of Soyuz) has been launched succesfully 250 times. There have been also many succesfull launches of Vostok launcher (88 between 1970 and 1988 any many before that, I do not have complete numbers). All these rockets belong to "A" family of boosters. Let's limit our calculation to Soyuz (Molniya is not flying to LEO and for Vostok I do not have the number in hand). Soyuz delivers 7500 kilograms to LEO. 7500 kg * 994 = 7455tons to LEO. No matter how you do the numbers for Space Shuttle, you can't match that. Pawel Moskalik ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 16:12:12 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1993May22.164247.6190@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>The more pressing question though is "Why go back to the Moon?" >>The general public says "Been there, done that." And there seems >>little commercial justification. There are certainly more interesting >>scientific targets. Mars for one, minor planets and comets for others. > >The main reason for going back to the Moon is to start a sustained >program of space exploration. The first step in doing that *has* to >be convincing the public (or whoever's funding you) that one or two >visits is not enough. A program whose support is based on "firsts" >is headed straight for another post-Apollo disaster, because there >just aren't that many readily-accessible "firsts". If the objective >is sustained spaceflight, the Moon is the right place to start. Well, which is it, sustained space exploration or sustained spaceflight? They are different. We have sustained spaceflight now. It costs billions and doesn't return much of value, but we have it. Selenologists would be delighted to poke around the rocks of the Moon again and again, for billions a pop, but is that of as much scientific value as looking at other, more potentially promising, bodies in the solar system, some of which are actually easier to reach? >Commercial justification for a return to the Moon is slim, but for >anything else -- Mars, asteroids, etc. -- it's nil. I've been on the other side of this with Nick, but comets and Earth crossing asteroids may offer much higher commercial rewards. And open space offers commercial potential for communications, manufacturing, and perhaps even power. What's Luna offer? Maybe He3, some light metals and oxygen buried in yet another gravity well. Not very appealing. >As for "more interesting" scientific targets, that depends on who you >ask. There is a long list of unsolved mysteries of lunar science. >And letting your space program be run by which target looks most >interesting at the moment means not having a *program* at all, just >a random grab-bag of missions. I disagree. A program means a planned series of investigations. They aren't required to all terminate at a single body. The Moon is a dead world. Come back in a thousand, or a million, years, and not much of significance will have changed. Mars, Venus, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, comets, all are active bodies that require timely and continuing observation. I suggest we forget the dead Moon, and like the pioneers crossing the western deserts to reach the California gold fields, head for the most promising targets first and let the desert rats comb the rest at leisure. Lunar bases don't make economic or scientific sense, and they aren't *necessary* stepping stones to the more interesting targets. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 14:09:45 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1tjn9h$9kv@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > >I think the Endangered Species act may apply. Also interfering with >Diplomatic relations, and violsating the nuetrality act. > >pat The Endangered Species Act wouldn't come into play for two reasons. First ET is not listed, and second his species is not endangered by murdering him. In fact it may be *required* under agricultural import laws to dispose of him. It's considered environmental bad form to import an alien species into new habitat, see rabbit (Aus), walking catfish (Fla), certain lizards (Hawaii), tropical birds (Ga), etc. A diplomat has no status until his credentials are accepted by the authorities of the country to which he is posted. The Neutrality Act wouldn't apply unless killing ET was of material help to a third group with which ET's species was at war. Since ET isn't listed as a game species, even charges of hunting out of season can't be raised. He's not listed as a songbird or a migratory waterfowl. At best a charge of exterminating vermin without an exterminator's license might be raised, but even that fails if the killer isn't paid for the job. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 16:00:30 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) Newsgroups: sci.space nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >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). I should have said I was being facetious when I wrote this. I thought that the phrase "going off the deep end" would be an indicator. I'd like to point out, though, that less than a hundred years (although just barely) separate the two of us from an era where it was semi-legal to hang someone for stealing a horse. I imagine the penalty for killing a healthy horse in no pain was similar. >reformat!< >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. I'd like to point out that any extraterrestrial you or I see walking down the street belongs to a civilization that could cross the interstellar gulf; this implies a level of industry that could drop a dinosaur killer on this planet easier than you or I could put more gravel in our driveways. If an extraterrestrial is walking around, vulnerable to attack, then he is likely non-hostile. If he is hostile, then he's likely a nut that we *could* try to defend ourselves against, just as we have the right to defend ourselves against other humans or near-sentient creatures on this planet (off the top of my head, great apes, whales, elephants, and bears. Polar bears are thought to be as intelligent as gorillas by some scientists, but since you're in Nome I won't bother to elucidate that they're a lot more hostile). >Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked Where have you been the last couple weeks? Sci.space hasn't been the same without you (although the Kill the Adsat Builders! thread may have had something to do with it). -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1993 14:28:28 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) Newsgroups: sci.space Unlawful discharge of a firearm, within city limits:-)?????? I guess we need to put a codicil to the Endangered species act to include all xeno tropic life forms until otherwise unlisted. That or define all US law to apply to sentient creatures, of course, then we may have to start properly treating certain marine mammals. pat ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1993 11:41:31 -0400 From: Pat Subject: murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May18.172229.18784@bnr.ca> agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes: > >Do the US legislators believe that their laws are superior to the law of >the land the Americans concerned happen to be in? If not, why bother? If >so, what are they going to do about it? What is the difference between >passing laws that the US claims apply in other peoples' countries and >any other form of denial of other countries' national sovereignty (eg. >invasion)? > No actually, what we believe in is overlapping jurisdictions. Your country may have whatever weak little laws it may choose, but we will also excercise a competing claim to jurisdiction, enforceable through either extradition and according to the supreme court, the occasional black bag job. You guys are absolutely sovereign to whatever degree you seem but that does not mean we don't excercise a claim to jursidiction on acts involving our nationals, our technology, our vessels or our property. Besides, the english are hardly one to cry foul over wounded national sovereignity. It's never stopped you in your history from invading people, or trampling over their rights. Let's look at icelandic fishing rights as local history, or the Suez. And besides any country that still has problems with fundamental human rights is still a bit behind. >Sorry if that sounds aggressive, but I have had to point out to US >citizens that I am *not* under the jurisdiction of the United States >Supreme Court unless I happen to *be* in the United States in the >past. I do not like having to do it. Before you c) start passing >laws for us, you are supposed to a) invade, and b) win. > I thought we did, during WW2. and at teh rate yugoslavia is broiling, we'll be in europe again fixing your mess. >The UK computer industry has had to fight several battles over US >invasive legislation. With all due respect to non-aggressive American >posters, > Unless of course, it's our technolgy you used and licensed. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 15:43:55 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: SDIO kaput! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May19.172018.22512@cs.tulane.edu> boimare@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (frank boimare) writes: >Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-22429]: rs1.tcs.tulane.edu >Lines: 17 > >Nixon did not end the "war." The majority of the Vietnamese people wanted to >farm rather than die and the governments on both sides offered them a better >chance at the latter than the former. Wars end swiftly when the people for >whom they are being fought have no vested interest in them. Oh dear, a bit of study of the history of the Vietnam War seems in order for you. Perhaps you're too young to remember the sight of people clinging to helicopters lifting from the American embassy roof. The North and the VC very much wanted to fight to victory, and they did, crushing the South's forces, from whom we had withdrawn material support. Nixon didn't end the War, he found a face saving way of capitulating. The boat people are testimony that the Vietnamese are still paying the price. >Let's spend the money on making this world and the next few we inhabit better >places to live. Down with war and up with space technology and exploration! > >(Slowly peeping out from behind a surplus heat shield...) As well you should. :-) Wars, and rumors of war, have been with us since Cain slew Abel. There are roughly 50 shooting wars going on somewhere on the globe right now. Any one of them, see Bosnia, could draw the world into conflict at any time. As nations have found to their dismay throughout history, neglecting defenses invites attack sooner or later. If commerce moves into space, militarization will follow, if it doesn't lead the way. Economic activity is the lifeblood of society, no nation can long leave it's lifeblood unprotected. My personal view is that space commerce won't come of age until space dreadnaughts are cruising the spacelanes. (Likely not literally, but the functional equivalents will be operational.) Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 17:54:29 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SDI RIP. So what happens to DC? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1tgke1$7jq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis) writes: >With space-based SDI now a thing of the past (or, more accurately, of >the past's future :-) ), what is going to happen to programs like Delta >Clipper and Clementine? To a great extent, it's up to us. If we lobby for those programs they can be kept alive. If not, they are in real danger. 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 18:05:26 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines Followups set away from misc.headlines and mics.consumers In article youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes: >>If the proposed space station, Freedom, were built, you wouldn't >>have any trouble making it out as a man-made object. It would look >>like a "I", not like a point of light. Does the fact that it would >>be a government, rather than a commercial, project mean would not >>be disrupt the pristine sky? > At least the science of Astronomy would benefit from a scientific > station in orbit. Astronomy as a scientific goal for the space station was abandoned years ago. The scientific benefits would be for biology and material sciences. > ...Also, to be useful for advertising, a sign in > space would have to be pretty bloody huge, not a "little I" as the > space station would produce. Not really: All advertising has to do is put the product's name into people's mind. This can be much more subtle that having them read the word. If people notice an "I" shaped object moving across the sky (or have it pointed out to them) and are later told that they were seeing (say) Intel's orbital microchip factory that would be very good advertising: It would put the company's name into people's heads and would connect it with something impressive. NASA certainly hopes to get some advertising out of the space station: Simply having a visible accomplishment moving across the sky would help their budget enormously... In just the same way, corporate donations to universities and sponsorship of things like the Olympics are usefull "advertising", even if there isn't a big sign reading "The choice of a new generation." Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 617 ------------------------------