Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:17:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 05:17:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #266 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 266 Today's Topics: Re: Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule Re: 1992 moon base Satellite Re: Satellite Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle Re: First concert from space--update Re: Space colonies Forbes article on manned space program Re: NASA, Soviets, gripes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Feb 89 16:21:48 GMT From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@gatech.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: Re: Model rockets: composite materials/mixing rule In article <9702@ihlpb.ATT.COM> rjungcla@ihlpb.ATT.COM (R. M. Jungclas) writes: >The fellow that I know uses a variety of different materials, especially >fiberglass cloth. I have no idea what weight he used, where he got it, >or what price he paid. All I recall with regards to price is a >statement of his that comparable size tubes cost more than >manufacturer's tubes. I do know that he has contacted military >suppliers. The builders of fiberglas model rocket tubes that I've seen are using 3/4 oz glass cloth from Sig, usually only a single wrap (with slight overlap at the seam, wrapped over a steel mandrel coated with mold release. There is also a supplier of carbon fiber materials buried in the classified ads in _American Spacemodeling_: Competition Specialties PO Box 452 Vine Grove, Kentucky 40175 Catalog $3.00; emphasis on composites for model rocketry use. I have not seen their catalog but plan to get my hands on it shortly. -- Mark Johnson (Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM) WB9QLR/0 (Monon RR enthusiast) NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS phone: (316)636-8189 email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226 ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 89 19:10:56 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base In article <6592@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes: >>... 2.7 tons were reserved for a modified Apollo >>capsule for emergency return. > > That's some modification...the CSM weighed 55,000 lbs... Sounds like they were planning to use just the CM, not a full CSM, although they'd have had to goose the life support up a bit. >... you have to bring more people back now, which should account for >most of it... A stock Apollo CM could hold five people with minor modifications; such a configuration was planned in detail for the Skylab rescue plan (which was never used, since none of the Skylab crews needed rescuing). This by itself wouldn't add much. -- 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: 23 Feb 89 05:54:46 GMT From: well!pan@apple.com (Philip Nicholls) Subject: Satellite I am posting this for a friend. He can be reached at well!gregor for email. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A SMALL SATELLITE 2-21-89 The San Francisco and Golden Gate Chapters of the National Space Society will launch a small satellite into orbit in the summer of 1990. We are soliciting proposals for instruments and experiments to go in that satellite. Two obvious types of mission are astronomical and earth-sensing, but we are open to other ideas. Deadline for responses is March 15, 1989. Proposals should be limited to 3 pages (excluding resumes). A decision will be announced by the end of March. Experimenters will be responsible for funding and building their own experiments. Depending on the complexity of the instrument package, it must be ready for integration with the satellite by February 1990. Proposals should discuss: o The scientific goals of the mission. o A brief description of the experiment itself. o The proposer's technical background and ability to complete an instrument package in the time allowed. At this stage in the planning we are looking at two types of platform: o A non-stabilized (tumbling) satellite o A gravity-stabilized satellite with spin axis pointing at the Earth Proposals may address either or both options. We're looking for good science AND a mission which will attract wide public attention. Satellite Parameters: Altitude: 150 to 400 nautical miles. Orbit: High inclination polar orbit. Circular. 96 degrees sun-synchronous. Lifetime: 4 months to decades. No recovery of payload. Weight: Up to 20 pounds Volume: About 1.5 cubic feet. Hexagonal space 22" wide, 6" high. On-board Data Storage: 1 S32 or IEEE488 bus. Downlink: 9,600 bits/second. Telemetry will be provided for the life of the satellite. Attitude Control: Either none (a tumbler) or gravity-boom stabilized. Power: Solar cells with storage batteries. 5 watts average. Peaks of 20 watts for short times. Temperature Range: 58 - 84 degrees F. Shielded against charged particles and radiation. G Forces at Launch: 12G vertical, 3G lateral. Special Rules: This launch is not being done through NASA, so it's not necessary to follow all NASA requirements for components. Experiments with additional power or pointing requirements will be considered, but preference will be given to experiments with lower requirements. Submit Proposals To: National Space Society, San Francisco Chapter P.O. Box 1351 San Francisco, CA 94101 For more information contact Gregor Hartmann, President, San Francisco Chapter, National Space Society, at 415-863-3737. The National Space Society is a nation-wide grassroots organization which promotes the civilian use of the solar system. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 89 19:50:14 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Re: Satellite In article <10815@well.UUCP>, pan@well (Philip Nicholls) writes: > >REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS >FOR A SMALL SATELLITE >2-21-89 > >The San Francisco and Golden Gate Chapters of the National >Space Society will launch a small satellite into orbit in >the summer of 1990. We are soliciting proposals for >instruments and experiments to go in that satellite. A warning for those who might be interested in this proposal. These are the same people who just lost their shirts on a benefit concert performance by The Bobs, one of the hottest musical groups in the San Francisco area. The benefit was a $3,000 affair. This satellite launch is going to cost on the order of $100,000. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to find the money. >The National Space Society is a nation-wide grassroots >organization which promotes ... space station, space shuttle, NASP, and most other NASA schemes to keep us out of space. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 89 18:21:14 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Vehicle In article <1441@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: >It is also worth noting that the Ariane V will be man-rated. >I believe the proton is too. One hears varying stories about whether Proton was meant to be man-rated, but I don't think it is today. >Is there any plans to do this with the Titan IV? It could probably be done, but I don't think anybody plans to do it. Various people have recommended development of an expendable-launched manned capsule, but NASA and the USAF are ignoring them. -- 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: 22 Feb 89 20:48:50 GMT From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Rick Wojcik) Subject: Re: First concert from space--update In article <1885@randvax.UUCP> talmy@randvax.UUCP (Shel Talmy) writes: >A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to >stage the first ever concert from space. A large portion of the proceeds >from this venture is to be donated to various charities. I usually applaud activities designed to promote charity and I don't really want to spoil anyone's fun, but it seems to me that our space program (and that of the Soviets) has suffered egregiously from people who want to turn it to some nonscientific purpose. The shuttle program suffered a spectacular setback, not just because astronauts died, but because certain politicians wanted to turn it into a real media event. There is no justification whatever for sending Senators, teachers, and singers into orbit. The Soviet Union shouldn't be sending up astronauts from different nations just to score political points. There is more than enough work up there for scientists and professional astronauts. Countries such as the US and the USSR use up huge resources to keep these activities going, and it is a shame that people can't understand the worth of the investment without a sugar coating. Perhaps we need these kinds of activities to keep the space program alive, but I think that people would be much more receptive to it if our leaders tried to promote the space program from loftier motives--e.g. the advancement of science and the destiny of the human race. I apologize to Shel and others in her company for being such a curmudgeon. It is just my personal opinion that we are not yet at a point where the activity that they contemplate is justifiable. -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 89 21:59:57 GMT From: tektronix!reed!mehawk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Sandy) Subject: Re: Space colonies Oops. Made a few errors in last night's post. The article was the _March_ 1989 Discover. Also, the g-forces involved were in the 100's of 1000's of g's, and the _launch_ technology could be built tested and contructed by 1995 for 300 million$. The stumbling block, it seems, is making satellites tough enough to take being shot out of a rail gun and still have maneuvering ability to change their trajectory from a ballistic that intersects the planet to an orbit which doesn't ;*). Supposedly such technology would be "expensive to develop, possibly more than the launch facility." That doesn't strike me as much of a limitation at all. The usefulness of shockproof, tough electronics has uses _far_ beyond just space. Car engines, drill bits hydraulic presses and stress monitors for buildings would just be a start of the list of applications. Simply having a cheap way of getting booster rockets into orbit would be worth it in my opinion, a reliable satellite launcher that is _cheap_ as all hell... IMHO, dozens of companies would be building more satellites if they knew that they would indeed be launched. At $300 mil for the whole launch setup, including development costs, dozens of launchers may spring up by the end of the century. Microtechnology would probably be advanced in tandem with satellites and electronics that can survive mega-g's so easily launched light planetary probes could eventually be launched with no boosters or gravity slings needed. Well, maybe not, but it is a great thought to think on. The actual projected launch costs, including overhead, was 10-40$ per pound, as compared to 1,000-40,000/pound for conventional launches, (depending on the source). Michael Sandy mehawk@reed.uucp ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 89 21:05:19 GMT From: amanda!msodos@sun.com (Martin Sodos) Subject: Forbes article on manned space program This weeks Forbes had an interesting article on the space program vis-a-vis the desirability of building the station and going to Mars. I won't reprint the article here (those interested can get a copy), but I'll outline the basics contained therein. Note before I begin that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the contents or the conclusions, I'm merely summarizing. The basic thrust of the article begins by noting how the Soviets have said that as a result of their research into extended stays in space, they have come to the conclusion that without changing the basic environment provided that their cosmonauts will be unable to survive more than a year in space at a time. It is then noted how the National Academy of Sciences and of Engineering have both recommended that a trip to Mars and the space station, which uses this as one of its' main justifications for being built, should not be built until more basic research into life sciences and related engineering issues is done. They also recommend that the station and trips to Mars be separated from the rest of the NASA budget. It is noted that merely rotating a space station is not a reasonable solution, the example given being that to generate 1 g at 1 rotation per minute requires a station either 10 miles wide, or a tether with a counter- balance of the same length, Not a trivial engineering problem. The article goes on to infer that the space program has suffered from the manned space efforts, and that the ability of man to live in space for extended periods is currently a romantic notion, disproven by the facts. The reader is then presented with the logical conclusion that therefore, a trip to Mars would be a likely disaster until we know more about how to enable man to survive for extended periods, and should be, at least temporarily, put on a back burner. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the facts and conclusions provided, I think the article makes for intesesting reading, particularly because it is contained in a respected business, not scientific, publication, and may therefore be indicative as to how the educated lay public perceives 'the facts'. MS -- Martin Sodos Sun Microsystems uucp: {any major}!sun!msodos Mt View, CA phone: (415) 336-6011 A man who isn't a liberal in his youth has no heart. A man who is not a conservative in his later years has no brains. Winston Churchill (paraphrase) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 89 14:39:45 GMT From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: NASA, Soviets, gripes Has anyone besides me noted the slow shuttle launch pace since last fall? At this rate, we'll get maybe six flights this year. Since NASA is spending $3.4 B on the shuttle this year, that's about $10K/pound to orbit. America won't be "back in space" until NASA can demonstrate that it can launch the shuttles at a much higher sustained rate. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #266 *******************