Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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 ; Sun, 24 Sep 89 16:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 24 Sep 89 16:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #68 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions (Saturn V) Re: Mars Mission ship design Re: How is Voyager powered? Re: Mars Mission ship design Possible extra planet ISDC conference announcement Re: Linguistic Tidbits Re: Sunraster Voyager II images Re: Observing Oct 12 Launch Re: Voting via taxes & other 3&*%^#! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Sep 89 16:49:02 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions (Saturn V) I should reply on this, since I wrote that one for Eugene. Note that Eugene wanted a *very short* answer, which precluded proper explanations. >+Possible but very expensive -- tools, subcontractors, plans, facilities >+are gone or converted for the shuttle, and would need rebuilding, >+re-testing, or even total redesign. >+ > Excuse me, but I take exception your having posted this as if it were a >cast-in-concrete fact. Ever since STS this has been the NASA party-line on >the subject. Not everyone is so sure of this, Eugene... Boeing is; they investigated the matter at great length for the Jarvis project, for which they very badly wanted to use the F-1 and J-2 engines. They concluded that it just was not economically practical to put them back into production. >2) Engineers (not MANAGERS!) could, in a matter of months, cut new NC/CNC > tapes for a majority of the required structural components. Sigh. The shape of a component is the least of your problems. Things like exact composition, heat-treatment methods, etc. are also of great relevance to structural strength and the like. Re-engineering all this is possible, but it is not much easier than starting from scratch -- the result is quite likely to be different enough to require a whole new series of tests. >3) The electrical sub-system could be re-engineered using modern PC-based > circuit emulator packages; the harnesses could be built and tested in any > number of wire-houses (most of which are in Mexico, BTW!) that now supply > such complex wiring looms for major computer manufacturers, at about 1/2 > the cost of the orignal wiring looms! Uh, are they equipped to test for space qualification? (Vacuum, heat, high vibration, etc. etc.) I doubt that very much. Besides, here again we are talking about starting from scratch rather than reviving the old design. >4) Rockwell's Rocketdyne Div. CAN STILL SUPPLY F-1 ENGINES. Do you have references for this? What's their price for reviving the production line? (If you mean they still have a few in storage, yes, they do... but I wouldn't fly on one, not after two decades of storage.) And remember that you've got to find somewhere to launch the things from, since all the Saturn V facilities at KSC have been extensively modified for the shuttle. (And no, they did not preserve Saturn compatibility.) It's just not as easy as it looks. Alas. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 20:55:52 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!thompson@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Dan Thompson) Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design Concerning the idea of placing the gravity modules at the ends of long access tubes, I can see that you could have a problem during the thrust stages. If they are extended as far as shown in the diagram, I think it would undergo tremendous torque stress during any substantial thrust. Perhaps using a cylindrical design would work better. Admittedly, it would not provide as great amount of gravity, but it would not suffer from the above described stress. (Please forgive the lack of quoted references, as I am new to the net and unsure of the system. In fact, could some kind soul send me an e-mail reply to confirm that this post made it?) Dan Thompson thompson@snowwhite.cc.utexas.edu Disclaimer: I'm unemployed, so I don't care if my boss agrees with me. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 15:52:24 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ucsd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: How is Voyager powered? In article <2067@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (nick szabo) writes: }In article <1268@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.spp.cornell.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: }>In article <6087@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall) writes: }>Why screw around with strontium? If you are willing to pay $2500 for }>300 watts, solar cells can do that right now, including the batteries }>to get you through the night. } }>"P"TG's are in use in the Cascade Mountains*, to power remote weather data }>gathering stations (rain, snow depth). They have some solar cell power as }>well, but people know what they are, and steal the panels. Not too many }>people know a "P"TG when they see it. "P" is for propane, by the way. } } }Solar cells are not reliable because weather is not reliable (over many }days, not just one night); propane must be continually replenished. The }strontium RTG's presumably suffer from neither of these disadvantages. }I would like to see how they plan to protect customers from the radiation, }and how they plan to dispose of depleated RTG's. Has this totally left sci.space context when I wasn't watching? I must have missed the weather effects on Voyager (that _IS_ what the subject: reads as). BTW: The sun doesn't do all that great once you are more than four light-hours away... "In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain" - Pliny the Elder These were the opinions of : jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 17:38:55 GMT From: sumax!polari!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Kevin Bagley) Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design In article <7152@rpi.edu> jesse@pawl.rpi.edu (Jesse M. Mundis) writes: >Just some general details/suggestions for design: 1) Design the upcomming space station to withstand a specific amount of thrust. If the soviets can live in MIR for a year, surely some hardy US astronauts could manage a couple of years in something as plush as Freedom. 2) If it's decided there has to be gravity, use two modules connected with an access tunnel. Start it spinning. Cheaper and easier to build than a ring. Also, I don't think we need enough space to warrant a ring. __________ __________ | Gravity | Access_Tunnel | Gravity | | Module =============(_)============= Module | |__________| Connects to Freedom |__________| 3) Attatch boosters, BIG fuel tanks, landing, and exploration vehicles. 4) Boost out of earth orbit, using Lunar gravity assist to voyage to Mars. 5) Freedom orbits Mars while landing and exploration vehicles are sent down to begin establishment of base on Mars. Those remaining in Freedom could use low thrust vehicles to land on, explore, and return samples from Phobos and Diemos. I don't think the first time up we'll leave any body behind, but maybe on the second trip... 6) Leave Mars Base and return to Freedom. Return to earth orbit in Freedom (Lunar gravity de-assist). Shuttle astronauts back to earth. 7) Clean up all the Mars dust out of Freedom, and get it ready for the next trip. Meanwhile, it can still be used as a space station. Kind of gives new meaning to the word Freedom! I see this as more cost effective, and easier to accomplish than trying to use the Moon as a stepping off point for Mars. Lets go to the Moon for better reasons, like a Farside observatory. I don't think it makes much sense to jump out of earth's gravity well, into the moon's, only to have to jump out again. Questions: 1) How much more expensive would it be to design Freedom to withstand the necessary thrust. 2) Anybody know the estimated mass of Freedom. Using Lunar gravity assist, how much fuel/thrust would be needed. Don't forget the return home requirements. 3) How long would the trip take? How long would it take to build this contraption? 4) How many people should go? How long should they stay? 5) Any major flaws in this idea? Is it possible? Difficulties I see include... Fuel requirements, Braking requirements on earth return, and most of all -- political b.s.. >Jesse Mundis Lets build space vehicle/station Freedom. -- _____ Kevin Bagley Global Technology Mukilteo WA 98275 (206)742-9111 )__) _ _ _ UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!gtisqr!kevin _/__) (_(_(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu ____________/ Disclaimer: "I did not say this. I am not here." ------------------------------ Subject: Possible extra planet Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 16:59:52 EDT From: Jon Monsarrat "Dr. Who" I have heard many rumors about a suspected 10th planet, a big dark gas giant way out past Pluto. Would someone knowledgeable in astronomy please comment on what research has been done on this possibility, and what the current state of the hypothesis is? How would such a body be discovered, if it existed? Thanks very much. -Jon Monsarrat Just a guy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 11:14:46 CDT From: richard@pemrac.space.swri.edu (Richard Murphy) Subject: ISDC conference announcement In keeping with its international flavor, the Space Development conference is held each year in a prominent U.S. city. In 1988 it was Denver, with its magnificent snow-capped mountains; 1989 is Chicago, the gate-way to the Great Lakes; and 1990 will find us in Los Angeles, the show-biz capital of the world. The year 1991 will be no exception. We will meet in multi-cultured San Antonio, Texas, the 9th largest city in the United States. A city of festivals and the historically famous Alamo. A city . . . Where strolling along the Paseo del Rio (riverwalk) is a unique experience - a way of life for residents and visitors alike, Where roving mariachi bands provide dancing in the streets, and Where savoring the mouth-watering flavor of a real taco is not to be missed. Plan now to attend this exciting conference in a truly exotic and fun place. You will be updated by experts on NASA's status, the Russian space program, and other international space activities. Don't delay . . . 1991 will be here before you know it. Return the following form along with your $50.00 registration fee by May 1, 1990, after which time the price will be increased. This will ensure your participation in what promises to be a fantastic conference and will support conference preparation. Cancellation must be made four (4) weeks before the conference. There is a $15.00 non-refundable handling fee. Send registration to: Beatrice Moreno Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510 To obtain further information: Carol A. Luckhardt Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510 (512) 522-3823 or 340-1290 Internet: isdc-91@pemrac.space.swri.edu Usenet: convex!pemrac!isdc-91 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 13:04:19 GMT From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Linguistic Tidbits From article <45521@bbn.COM>, by ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer): > As a brief aside, somewhere ("Intelligent Life in the Universe" ?) Sagan > suggests the adjective "Cytherean" --from Cytherea, the island where > Venus/Aphrodite was "born"-- to describe things connected with Venus. *##$! That's what I was desperately trying to remember. This has certainly been used in SF; and I like it: Venus: pericytherion apocytherion Although, Venus: periaphroditon apoaphroditon seems more appropriate and no more difficult to say. Of course, I assume, Neptune: periposeidon apoposeidon - Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 15:38:49 GMT From: uc!jwabik@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Wabik) Subject: Re: Sunraster Voyager II images Could someone tell me where I could get these images (Internet ftp is cool)? They sound interesting, but I've obviously missed them. Thanks .. -Jeff -- Jeff A. Wabik E/Mail: jwabik@msc.umn.edu Minnesota Supercomputer Center AT&T: +1 612 626 0211 Minneapolis, MN FAX: +1 612 624 6550 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 22:01:11 GMT From: oliveb!amdahl!dlb!zygot!bruceh@apple.com (Bruce Henderson) Subject: Re: Observing Oct 12 Launch Does anyone know how long the next mission is slated to last? I would like to catch the landing at Edwards...... Thanks in advance! -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bruce Henderson Software Engineer zygot!bruceh@Apple.COM "Sorry, Mathematica can't goon this much" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 12:14:15 PDT From: greer%utd201.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" Subject: Re: Voting via taxes & other 3&*%^#! From: unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!cveg!hcx!jws3@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (6079 Smith James) >> Another good statistic is that Americans spent $17G on entertainment >> last year! People who say space program money would be better spent on >> should be asked to forgo movies, TV, music, >> all forms of entertainment. Nor, for that matter, should they be allowed >> information or activity of any kind which is not conducive to the >> furtherance of . > >Now flip that. "People who say money would be >better spent on the space program should be asked to...." Does that sound >reasonable to you? No? Didn't think so. >... >Elitist ranting from: >James Smith >JWSMITH@nasamail.nasa.gov "Thou hypocrite: cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye, that thou canst see to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Is it just me, or what? Doesn't it seem hypocritical of a people who spend $17G/year on music and movies, $250G/year on leisure supplies and activities overall, to say we shouldn't spend $13G/year on space exploration? Besides, just as A cross B does not equal B cross A, your flipping of my words does not produce and equivalent argument since a) we already spend over $300G/year on social programs, not including Social Security and Medicare, and b) I never asked that be scrapped altogether, whereas the people I'm talking about do ask that of space exploration. ---- "Drive Friendly or Die" | Dale M. Greer Proposed Texas License Plate Motto | Center for Space Sciences -- Anonymous | University of Texas at Dallas | UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #68 *******************