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 ; Wed, 22 Mar 89 03:16:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 03:16:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #304 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 304 Today's Topics: Maybe *more* low-latitude auroras! Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation March 17, 1989 CDSF Celibration at Tuscon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Mar 89 14:23:00 CDT From: "PAT REIFF" Subject: Maybe *more* low-latitude auroras! To: "space+" Cc: reiff@spacvax.rice.edu Reply-To: "PAT REIFF" The Northern lights were spectacular, seen over Texas all the way to Brownsville (many rural residents were concerned about brush fires). My friends at MIT say that another lesser (3.5 instead of 4.5) but better- placed flare went off yesterday. Look for more exciting activity late Friday night or Saturday night (maybe not as low down as Texas, but lower latitudes than usual). No real risk to astronauts - the high energy ions and electrons are very prompt (v~c), but only at high latitudes. The auroral electrons and ions are kilovolt energies, and readily shielded by minimum amounts of aluminum or glass shielding. The astronauts might get some spectacular photos, though (I wonder if they were able to get a shot with their IMAX camera?). Since the DMSP spacecraft were operating, we should be able to get some good black and white images of the aurora over the U.S. I don't know whether Dynamics Explorer was well placed to get a good auroral image. ------ From the First Space Science Department (celebrating its 25th anniversary): : _^ ^_ ____ Patricia H. Reiff : / O O \ |GO \ Department of Space Physics and Astronomy : \ V / |OWLS\ Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892 : / ""R"" \__/ internet: reiff%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu : \ ""U"" / SPAN: RICE::REIFF : _/|\ /|\_ telemail: [preiff/edunet] mail/usa :My kids don't agree :with me; why should :anyone else? ------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 11:44 EST From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU Subject: Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation A very simple experiment might provide some of the "touch and feel" of teleoperation for those without access to a mechanism with adjustable delays in the controls. Try doing various things while wearing heavy gloves with a slow strobe light for illumination. Better still, get one of the mechanical claws that are used to remove merchandise from the top shelf of department stores. The strobe light causes a variable delay between the current state of the world, and your information about it. This differs from a constant delay, but should have some resemblance. Chris Eliot University of Massachusetts at Amherst ------------------------------ X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:51:37 -0900 Reply-To: Sender: From: Subject: March 17, 1989 ISECCo UPDATE #7: Questions & answers. The following is a letter written to me by Rob Vingerhoeds, who is writing an article about ISECCo for a Dutch magazine. Since many of these questions are frequently asked by other people I thought it would be a good idea to release the entire 'discussion' as an update! >Dear Ray Collins, > >Herewith, we send you some questions which we have about ISECCo. Actually, we >have some more questions, but we want to formulate them, depending on the >answers you will give to these questions. >1. The ISECCo organisation >- who are the people behind ISECCo, what is their background and what is their > educational level (e.g. you are still looking for an aerospace engineer, so > probably you are not aerospace professionals) ISECCo currently has somewhat over 50 members. The majority of these members are in graduate school, seeking a master's degree or a Ph.D. We are pretty well spread out over the US, and have members in Canada, India and Australia. Our key members are: Ray Collins, Fairbanks AK: Founder, President & Director; currently studying toward a Ph.D. in Biospherics. Also owns a construction company and has a number of planes. Backing ISECCo will full extent of resources. Debi Wilkinson, Tallahassee FL: Co-founder & Director; currently studying toward a Ph.D. in Physics. Robert J. Hale III, Fairbanks AK: General Director & Director of Aero- space Plane division; while not interested in going to space Robert has donated more time than most other members! Beth Hayward, Anchorage AK: Director & General Secretary. Rich Kline, Tallahasse FL: Treasurer. Joe Beckenback: Pasadena (CalTech), CA: Vice President. >- why are you doing it, is it an ideal you want to fulfil I, personally, am doing it because space has always intrigued me and I want to help in my own small way. Most of our members are keenly interested in the cutting edge of technology and want to do what they can to have space colonization become a reality. >- in what for a term you want to accomplish all these plans, do you think it > is really possible with this limited amount of people and time (15 hrs/month) Our biosphere project is a 10 year project. The aerospace craft project is a 15 year project. Other ideas which ISECCo may possibly work on in the future extend well into the next century. Not sure where you got the 15 hours/month--I am currently working for ISECCo 50+ hours/month. Our total monthly labor is running slightly over 100 hours/month; this summer (5/1-9/30) we already have more than 2,000 manhours pledged. Money is a bit tighter, but over the last 12 months we have had over $70,000 in materials and cash pledged. If our current growth rate continues we will have more than 500,000 members and a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars by the year 2000 (though I don't really expect to keep up the current growth rate). >- is your work not already undertaken somewhere else (e.g. the aerospace plane > is presently being studied in the UK, Germany, Japan, and no doubt the US), > so things might be done twice ISECCo has no intention of duplicating anyone else's effort. To prevent duplicate efforts we have already proposed a number of affiliations with other space groups. We have concentrated our efforts in areas that other effort has been slight or non-existant (e.g. a small, pioneer-type biosphere); the aero-space plane project has not yet formulated a path but it is our intention to work on key portions of the technology (e.g. our hypersonic model--the initial phase of our aero-space plane project--to use for testing SCRAM jets, material technology {strength and heat resistance}, and aerodynamics--there is currently no method of testing at speeds above 10,000 mph). Whether we will actually BUILD an aero-space plane is something which may or may not occur. Many of our members are keen on the idea, but if there is another device already built that meets the requirements of a cheap space transportation system then we wouldn't. I should also point out that there are many different kinds of airplanes, and I see no reason there shouldn't be more than one kind of aero-space planes too! >- can you do with a relatively small group, with no doubt very motivated > people, the same work where in other parts of the world thousands of people > are working on full time. If you only look at the aerospace plane you will > see this will become an enormous project. This question directly addresses the reason why, in spite of the keen interest our members have in developing aerospace plane technology, our first project is the biosphere. The biosphere is withing our financial and manpower means. With a track record behind us (the biosphere) we will have shown the dedication needed to attract the people and money to develope more ambitious projects. You might say, however, 'Where there is a will there is a way.' We have the will. We seek the way... >2. The Biosphere >- what criteria do you follow in your construction of your biosphere, will it > act as a single cell in space, or has it to become a part within a space > station, or planet based base. If it has to exist on its own, the > construction will be more difficult and complex (e.g. pressure resistant) The only criteria we have for our biosphere is that the biological materials must cycle. Thus the only things permitted to pass the world/biosphere barrier are energy and mechanicals like light bulbs. So yes, it will have to be pressure resistant. Especially since future experiments will be to determine the best pressure for high productivity. >- so far you only looked at the food supply (hydroponics) in the biosphere, > does the biosphere also contains other parts such as the working environment > for the astronauts and do you look at the integration of this in the > biosphere Our biosphere's only function is to develope the technology needed to cycle biological materials. This project is not intended to look at other aspects of working and living in space. Since it will be inhabited full time we have to have a living area, but this living area has not been designed with space application in mind. >- your present research is done with plants that grow under gravity influence, > do you know how these behave in microgravity or a gravity force different > from earth This is an excelent question which we have not been able to properly address. Our current thinking is to develope the technology on earth and then make the adaptations necessary for space applications. Any suggestions on how to determine the gravitaional limits would be appreciated. I suspect that an orbiting biosphere will have to have artificial gravity (i.e. spun for centrifigal gravity) for the Soviets have had a great deal of trouble getting plants to mature in space. >- you will test the biosphere during one year, does this mean that a person > will have to live during that year from the products the biosphere produces > will that person will live for one year in the biosphere Yes; the person will have to be sealed inside the biosphere for one year; testing includes atmospheric balance. >- you say you will only allow an energy input in the biosphere, in space where > are you going to get it from (batteries, solar cells) Space power production is not being addressed. I would think, however, that direct sunlight would be used in all possible instances (naturally for lunar systems during the lunar night some alternative would be needed). >3. Other projects >- the other projects are not so well described as the biosphere is, in > particular the hydroponics, could you tell us more about the other plans > and how far they already are Our hydroponics are not well defined yet since we do not know what system will prove the most productive. We are currently experimenting with 4 different types of systems; a drip system, a hay-based system, a ceramic bead base and a gravel system. The drip system is a series of individual plants and a nutrient solution is dripped onto the roots. The plant is started in flats and when 6" tall is transplanted into a plastic container (painted black to reduce algae growth). A series of these containers, each with it's individual 'dripper', are arranged on a tray (4'x8') and as the plants grow they are spaced farther and farther apart, so at all times you have a minimum amount of unused space. The hay-based system is a bed of hay in a 4'x4' tray. Twice a day this hay bed is watered with a nutrient solution. We are currently growing 4 potatoes to be used in this system (for space considerations the plants are started in separate containers until they are big enough so space will not be too badly wasted!). In the biosphere the 'hay' will be from such things as plant stalks and other vegtable waste. After it has started to decompose we will put it into the biodegredation units for nutrient extraction. The gravel system is the classical method of growing hydroponics. While the weight of the gravel will preclude use in areas that it must be transported to (eg LEO) it will have excelent application on other planetary surfaces. The last method we are experimenting with is a medium of ceramics. Our initial experiments are growing a lot of algae (the ceramics, being white, allow light to penetrate into the medium). Enclosing the medium seems to be the best way to overcome the problem. This is 'watered' with the nutrient solution in the same manner as the classical gravel system. The advantage of the ceramics is that the weight is about .5% (.005) that of a gravel system. >- in the case of the aerospace plane, do you pay attention to propulsion, > construction and materials, and the aerodynamical aspect. Do you think > you could handle all these subjects in a small group. Only on the area of the > the propulsion technology for the Hotol a big group of engineers and > technicians is working more than 40 hours a week. While the aero-space plane is NOT an active project at the moment we have been doing a little speculating about design means and methods. Basically this is too big a project for us to undertake at this time, and I have stated to our members several times that we will not even begin to seriously consider the project until we have a million dollars committed to it, along with 50 man-years in pledges (our current status is 14, so we are approaching that goal!) Private enterprise design and developement of a project such as this is very different to government R&D, so comparisons should be made with care. When trying to come up with figures for the amount of time and money I compare this project with the Voyager aircraft (the plane that flew around the world non-stop). I would guess that project is around 1% as difficult as the aero-space plane. Their cost was around one million and 20,000 man- hours. Extrapolation would put our costs for a completed project at around $100,000,000 and 2,000,000 man-hours. This is not a completely unreasonable figure, even for an organization of our size. Especially since we do not intend to tackle actual contruction of a full scale aero-space plane for many years, if ever. >- in the case of the propulsion why do you choose for three propulsion cycles, > namely, jet engine, scramjet and rockets. Why not, as it is the case for > Hotol work with dual cycle engines (which is more advanced) At this point any methods of propulsion are pure speculation. However, to speculate (a favorite hobby of mine!) the reason for a multiple of engines is that you can then 'leave behind' those engines you are through with. Why carry all that weight up to orbit (the dual cycle engines are much more weighty than a single-method engine--though not twice as heavy this extra weight boosted to orbit is just that much less that you have to carry up and back)? As you will note the HOTOL device flopped...!! Please take note that I am NOT an aero-space engineer and as such anything I say is just speculation and will probably have little bearing on how the actual design will be... >- you mentioned somewhere a costprice for lauch of $250/lb. We have doubts > about whether this is a real figure, even when your labor is for free Current cost to launch a pound into orbit in fuel is on the order of $25. Since our craft is expected to have an orbited weight of 4,000# this comes out to a fuel cost of $100/lb ($25/lb*4,000lb/1,000 lb payload) of payload delivered to orbit. Given the facts that we hope to reduce the fuel requirements by 1/3 to 1/2 using SCRAM-jets instead of rockets for our initial boost; the fact that our ship MUST be SIMPLE and require few repairs/maintainence between flights; the fact that our labor is free; the fact that we hope to have many of our materials donated and the fact that our overhead will be very low (due to donated labor) I don't feel that $250/lb is TOO outragious. Anyhow this is how I came up with the numbers, which, again, I am no aero-space engineer and these numbers may or may not have any basis in fact. Show me any expenses I've left off and I'll be happy to modify the figures! >- why are you making two models of your space plane (one for a test flight > out) I am not sure that we will be making 2 models; only one may be necessary. However most of our members think that two will be needed for the engine testing is expected require a very different setup to properly simulate full scale design. Actually I expect to build many more than 2 models since I would be astonished if we were successful in getting it right the first time! >As mentioned in the beginning, there are more questions on our minds, but >maybe some of them will be answered in these questions as well. >We hope answering these questions will not take too much of you time and we >want to thank you in advance. >Rob Vingerhoeds >P.S. We already have started with the article itself and the questions given >are related to it directly. We hope to be able to finish the article in the >first presentable version around easter. The deadline the magazine has for us >is at april 10th. RV Any of you who haven't yet joined and are interested do get in touch with us. Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire decade. Anyone who wants to join can just send Robert, FNRJH@ALASKA, or myself a note on here (PLEASE include a regular mail address: we have had a number of responses which we have been unable to answer over BITNET!) and we'll send you a letter with the information we'll need. Alternatively you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706. --Ray :: President, ISECCo ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 07:52:32 PST From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: CDSF Celibration at Tuscon With the CDSF bill wired for passage, space activists from around the country are headed to Tuscon for a celibration this weekend. We'll be touring Biosphere II and some of us will head north for Arcosanti after the banquet Saturday! Every now and then there are victories! With the gold-plated NASA Space Station now doomed, maybe we can begin laying the ground-work for a REAL space station based on an evolutionary progression from extended duration orbiters to CDSFs to international cooperative research leading finally to a rational space station which should be buildable, then, in a period of 2 to 3 years. We might even get a space station built this way before NASA could get the first module off the ground! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society! La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #304 *******************