Message-ID: <IY0vray00UkZ4XuU43@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 03:16:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #255

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 255

Today's Topics:
			 Re Energia Questions
	       Soviet probe takes first Phobos pictures
			 Re: SPACE RESOURCES
		       Re: the un/manned debate
			  Re: 1992 moon base
			  NSS Hotline Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 16:20:48 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Re Energia Questions

In Space Digest V 9, #250 Peter Scott asks

> Those four boosters on Energia are liquid fuel, not solid, right?
> What altitude do they separate at?  Are they recovered and reused?
> What about the main rocket?  How close does it come to being able to
> go into LEO?  Could it do so if it jettisoned the engines and just
> send the shell into orbit?  If so, how come the Russkies haven't built
> an orbiting facility this way?
[Sorry Scott - I cannot reply directly so hope you get this]

    Energiya consists in its current form of a central core 8 m (26 ft.)
in diameter and 60 m (197 ft) tall with 4 strap on boosters each 4.3 m
(14 ft) by  40 m (131 ft) tall.  The strapons are liquid oxygen/kerosene
fulled, each with 4 trust chambers of a single engine, total thrust 
of 800 Tonnes per stapon.  The central core is a Liquid oxygen/hydrogen
system with 4 engines, 200 Tonnes trust each.  At takeoff both the 
sustainer core and the strapons ignite for a combined thrust of 4000 Tonnes.
about 2.5 minutes latter the strapons burn out at about a 60 Km (38 mi)
altitude.  The central core burns out after 8 minutes, at about 110 Km 
altitude (69 mi).  The third stage or orbiter if used in a shuttle mode
is ignited at that point from its side strapped on position and puts the
cargo into orbit.
     If you look at any picture of Energiya you will note that the 
strapons are not simple cylinders, but contain attachments at both the top and 
bottom of the cylinder.  After burnout those spring open and form air-breaks, 
which flip the strapons so that the engines are point up.  Then a parachute 
opens allowing each cylinder to land with the engines up.  The idea is that the
tankage system is cheap if it must be replaced, but the rocket engines are
expensive on a liquid booster.  The parachute system was tried out on the first
Energiya flight, but reports say that it was not used on the second (Buran)
launch (possibly to prevent complications on an already difficult mission).
To date none of the original boosters have been reused, they are just studying
the damage to them from a launch.  Do not forget these are undergoing a
solid surface landing, not a water one (hence more damage may be expected).
    The only statements about the core section (Lox/Hydrogen) are that 
currently it will not be recovered, except to study the damage to the engines.
The engines are an integral part of the frame and cannot be jettisoned.
However, on future missions it would be possible to place that entire central 
section into a low orbit.  The engines could then be separated from the 
booster, and brought down in their shuttle (the stated main purpose of which 
includes bringing cargoes down).  If or when this will occur is uncertain;
at the first flight it was stated that the core was only at 70% of orbital
speed on burnout.  That would reduce substantially the capacity of the 
booster.
    Why have they not built a space station with the core section? I doubt
if it is currently useful to do so.  Do not forget they have an operating
space station (Mir/Kvant), therefore there is little to drive them 
towards an immediate replacement.  Energiya is also a dual use system,
with several of its early flights aimed at their shuttle development.  They
will replace Mir when they have learned enough from it, in about 1995,
when that replacement station can be designed to be a very long term
system.  Lifting the tank and then filling it with equipment has been
talked about here (and was talked about for Skylab - the so called wet
lab).  However it is simply an engineering choice as to what would be
better - there is little experience on that.

                                                   Glenn Chapman
                                                   MIT Lincoln Lab

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

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 17:09:11 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet probe takes first Phobos pictures

   On Feb. 19th the Soviets reported that the Phobos II probe had undergone
another orbital adjustment, but gave no details.  In retrospect, this
appears to be a circularization to a 9700 Km (6030 km) from Mars center
orbit.  This is just 320 Km (200 mi.) outside of the orbit of Phobos itself.
The first pictures of the moon were receive today (Feb. 22) according to the
short wave, and one has appeared briefly on CNN just now.  This orbit
will be maintained for about the next month, while the exact orbit of
Phobos is measured (it is too poorly known at present to try for an
immediate attempt).  It will be photographed against the star background
to provide precise navigation parameters for the final approach during
the first week of April.  This report also shows that pictures of the
Mars surface have been received, but we just have not seen them published
as of yet.
   One report from external experimenters is available.  The ESA (European
Space Agency) plasma wave system measured the electron plasma oscillations
of the solar wind in the vicinity of Mars.  During the approach to the
planet the bow shock wave, where the solar wind piles up as it hits
the planetary magnetic field and ionosphere, was crossed several times.
Satellite News of Feb. 13 quotes the principal investigator, Rejean Gerard,
as saying "The PSW instrument worked perfectly, yielding a wealth of new
and exciting information about wave activity and plasma density in the 
Martian Environment".
   Now the assault on Phobos begins.
   
                                                   Glenn Chapman
                                                   MIT Lincoln Lab

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

Date: 18 Feb 89 10:14 EST
From: brantly.henr@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: SPACE RESOURCES
Cc: brantly.henr@Xerox.COM

Just for general information regarding Space Resources:

NASA has a publication available, NASA SP-428 "Space Resources and Space
Settlements" that you may find quite interesting.  (U.S. Government
Printing Office 1979 0--293-364)

From the Preface:

"This publication contains the technical papers from the five task groups
that took part in the 1977 Ames Summer Study on Space Settlements and
Industrialization Using Nonterrestial Materials."

"This summer study was the largest and most comprehensive investigation of
space manufacturing and habitation to date."

Study Topics:

Group 1:

REGENERATIVE LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS and controlled environment agriculture.

Group 2:

PARAMETRIC STUDIES OF EFFICIENT HABITATS IN SPACE.  Time and cost analysis
of a space manufacturing program plan.

Group 3:

Detection and analysis of special classes of asteriods suitable as material
resources for space manufacturing; STUDIES OF RETREVAL MISSIONS.

Group 4:

ELECTOMATIC MASS DRIVERS FOR USE AS INTER-ORBITAL ENGINES, as devices to
launch lunar material into space, and as tugs for the retreval of
asteroidal material.

Group 5:

CHEMICAL PROCESSING OF NONTERRESTRIAL MATERIAL IN SPACE; manufacture of
metals and glass fibers, benefication, and design of processing plants.


----------Good Reading----------


Dennis Brantly
Brantly.Henr@Xerox
Rochester, NY

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

Date: 19 Feb 89 00:15:22 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <215@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>>... money taken away from manned
>>programs does **NOT** get shifted to unmanned programs.
>
>And yet the reverse appears to be true.

It has happened at times.  I think, though, if you look at the record, you'll
find that most removals of money from unmanned programs were money that NASA
never saw again for any program.  (Note, I said "most" -- there have been
some prominent and unfortunate exceptions.)
-- 
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 18 Feb 89 15:40:19 GMT
From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <890217104456.00000F2B087@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
> Given Henry's later assertion that
> 
> >This was a *colony*, not a base, meaning no crew rotation and the intent
> >to be self-sufficient in basic materials essentially at once.
> 
> just *what* did they expect to get there in 6 shuttle flights that could
> have achieved that?

This echoes my suspicions exactly. _What_ will those six shuttle
loads contain? Sustaining life is inherently much harder on the
moon than on the earth. Thus the industrial infrastructure that
does the sustaining must be proportionately more productive than
terrestrial industry. If technology with this kind of ROI existed,
it would already be visible. You would see entrepreneurs dropping
off six pallets of gear in the middle of the Australian desert,
setting up shop, and generating great material wealth with minimal
outside trade.
 
I see problems. For example, where will the energy come from? Two
obvious sources are solar and nuclear. Setting up a largely self-
sufficient nuclear power industry in the space of six shuttle
loads with current technology seems like one of the wilder 1950's-
vintage AEC fantasies (along the lines of the atomic-powered
automobiles and unmetered electricity that were predicted at the
time). If we forget about self-sufficiency, I suppose a lunar
colony could operate a small shipboard-style nuclear plant. But I
think self-sufficiency would come sooner if the main source of
power was solar energy.
 
I like solar energy, so that's fine with me. Given the likely scarcity
of working fluids and the abundance of silicon on the moon, I suppose
we will prefer photovoltaics to thermal-electric systems.
(Concentrating mirrors will make excellent solar furnaces on the moon,
so some sunlight can be used directly.) Sunlight on the moon is more
reliable than on the earth, because the absence of atmospheric
interference means the collectors get a full ~1450 W/m^2 whenever they
face the sun perpendicularly. However, the long lunar night
necessitates some form of power storage, building multiple collector
arrays around the moon along with a large power grid, or orbiting
arrays. The last two options are out of the question for a nascent
colony. That leaves us with storage, along with perhaps a severe
night-time energy conservation strategy. The scarcity of working
fluids probably eliminates pumped hydro and gas-compression, leaving
us with the only other large-scale _proven_ energy-storage technology
that I can think of: batteries. An array of batteries big enough to
last a self-sufficient colony two weeks isn't going to fit in six
shuttle loads with much room left over. A small nuke plant looks like
a necessary starting seed.
 
The long lunar night is a big enough problem to largely offset the
advantages of solar power on the moon vs. the earth. Arid regions of
the earth have occasional interruptions, but they will virtually never
go 14 consecutive days without sunshine. But on earth solar energy
still doesn't quite compete with fossil fuels (even though
photovoltaic power prices have dropped 90% in the last decade, and are
predicted to cross fossil fuel prices sometime in the 1990's). And
here's the kicker: the terrestrial fossil-fueled economy is not nearly
productive enough to provide the average citizen even in the richer
nations with the material wealth necessary to sustain life on an
airless ball of rock. Until I see manned-space advocates everywhere
abandoning fossil fuels and growing wealthy from solar energy, energy
conservation, and recycling, I will have my doubts that they can do
this on the moon. 

Note: I would dearly love to see all of us do this, both here and
there.

Cheers,
 
Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu

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

Date: 18 Feb 89 18:26:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov
Subject: NSS Hotline Update


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending Feb.
17, 1989

The Air Force has successfully launched a new generation Delta II rocket
last Wednesday at 1:30 pm from Cape Canaveral, carrying the first of 21
Navstar navigational satellites into orbit.  When all are in place these
satellites will revolutionize navigation by allowing U.S. and allied forces
on the ground, at sea, or in the air to determine location and altitude
within about 50 feet.  The Air Force will launch one every sixty days until
all 21 are in orbit in a constellation about 11,000 miles above the earth.

At the Kennedy Space Center:

Technicians are securing the three oxidizer turbo pumps on the main engines
of the Space Shuttle Discovery today.  The connections between the pumps
will be leak checked, and the head shields will be installed some time next
week.  Once the heat shielding is in place cycle tests will be conducted on
the main engine valves and the orbiters aerosurfaces.  In addition a helium
leak test is scheduled for the main propulsion system sometime next week. 
A payload end-to-end test is currently under way to verify communications
between ground stations and the Tracking Data Relay Satellite/Inertial
Upper Stage payload.

On the Atlantis Orbiter tires for the nose landing gear were installed
yesterday, while two of the four tires for the main landing gear will be
arriving today and installed overnight.  The remaining two tires will be
installed over the course of the weekend.  Thermal protection system
operations are continuing.

Power up testing continues on the Columbia Orbiter as well as checkouts of
the main propulsion system.  In addition technicians have been testing and
patching the orbiters hydraulic system and repairing and replacing damaged
heat shielding tiles.

A joint research effort between NASA and NOAA has not uncovered a hole in
the ozone above the Arctic circle like the one observed above Antarctica. 
Project Scientists that investigated the atmosphere over the Arctic said
that the atmosphere is primed for ozone depletion due to an abundance of
chlorine chemicals in the atmosphere.  It has become widely accepted that
the presents of chlorine chemicals in the upper atmosphere causes a break
up of the ozone layer.  Because the coldest winter temperatures in the
arctic are warmer than antarctica it is more difficult to observe ozone
depletion.  The scientists could not verify whether there has been any
increase in ultraviolet radiation from the suns rays over the northern
hemisphere.

After six year of research and controversy, the Strategic Defense
Initiative is ready to under go some key space tests which will determine
its technical and political viability.  The tests will take place in the
coming months and will involve as many as tree satellites and experiment
next month on the Space Shuttle Discovery.  Astronauts will flash onboard
lights in the payload bay each time the spacecraft passes over the Maui
test facility.  The test will determine whether ground based sensors can
identify and track different types of spacecraft.  It was not verified as
to whether this test had direct SDI applications.

A bill was introduced by Rep. George Brown, a long time critic of SDI, that
would place a ban on all nuclear-powered spacecraft in Earth orbit.  The
bill would urge the President to get the Soviet Union to abandon use of
nuclear reactor in orbit.  If the USSR agrees to comply the US would be
bared from placing nuclear powered spacecraft in orbit.  The Bill would not
stop the use of reactors for deep space science or spacecraft.

In about two weeks Vice Pres, Dan Quayle is supposed to present to congress
the status of the new National Space Council.  As of today the council
still lacks a director, a staff and a direction.  Already four of Quayles
candidates have removed themselves from the list prior to consideration.

Florida Governor Bob Martinez will include $10 million in his next fiscal
budget to support the development of a commercial launch facility.

An Italian woman has locked herself in a totally isolated cave in New
Mexico for five months to simulate the experiences of astronauts on long
voyages.  Stefania Follini, who entered a 100 square foot plexiglas cubical 
on Jan. 13, has been sleeping 10 hours and staying awake 20, reported the
leader of the US/Italian research team.  He expects that these cycles will
lengthen.  Follini's only contact with the outside world has been through a
personal computer, on which she relays results of tests of concentration
and brain wave activity.  Results so far have shown that her concentration
seems to have sharpened during her first four weeks of isolation.

The Soviet planetary probe Phobos II maneuvered into orbit around Mars on
Jan. 29.  The spacecraft will orbit into a position close to Mar's moon
Phobos and drop off two landers that will study the moon upclose for about
24 hours.  The spacecraft as of today if functioning normally.  JPL's deep
space network lent the Soviets a hand in tracking Phobos II ten times in
Jan. to verify the Soviets attempt to place it into orbit around Mars.

Meanwhile the Soviet Union has kicked off the new year with a variety of
space activities.  Already the Soviets have launched some 9 satellites with
their reliable proton boosters, 7 of the satellites are military
communication satellites, but one will be their first attempt at
photographing central antarctica.   The Mir space station was replenished
with supplies when an unmanned progress rocket system docked to the maned
platform.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #255
*******************