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/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Wed, 7 Feb 90 01:26:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 01:26:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #13 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: One Small Step for a Space Activist... NASA Headline News for 02/05/90 (Forwarded) Re: metric vs. imperial units Re: More Info On SSX Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency Re: Grassroots Space "Radicals" Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Feb 90 13:31:18 GMT From: ox.com!itivax!vax3!aws@CS.YALE.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Below is a column our chapter is writing for the various NSS chapter newsletters. The intent is to provide people with information on the status of current space related legislation. I will post the column every month around this time unless I get too much negative feedback. Comments and ideas for future columns are appreciated. One Small Step for a Space Activist... by Allen W Sherzer Tim Kyger Welcome to the inaugural "One Small Step for a Space Activist". This column hopes to make it possible for space activists to be more proactive on issues of pending space legislation. If we are to be effective in enacting our agenda we must be effective in the early stages of the legislative process. A phone call the day before a vote is just not enough. This monthly column will provide information on the status of important space legislation, what still remains to be done to make it law and how you can help make it happen. The rest will be up to you. As the title implies, it doesn't take a lot of time. An hour or so per month calling and writing will have a huge impact provided we all do it. One of the most important pieces of recent legislation is The Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of 1989 (HR 2674) introduced by Congressman Ron Packard (R CA) of San Diego. This bill would require all government payloads to be launched by private contractors. This will encourage the private launch industry and significantly reduce cost to orbit. The federal government is currently the largest purchaser of launch services but their excessive requirements forces each launch vehicle to be virtually custom made. These execessive requirements eliminates economy of scale and adds to cost. HR 2674, mandates that the government must purchase space transportation services the same way they purchase any other transport service. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space, Science and Applications, Dennis Dunbar, Vice President of Programs and Technical Operations for General Dynamics estimated that passage of this bill would result in a 50% reduction in launch costs. Mr Dunbar also gave an example of a government and private launch they were asked to submit proposals for. Both launches were for similar payloads to similar orbits. The government proposal was 4250 pages and the private proposal was 91 pages. By getting HR 2674 enacted, we can help build a strong, viable domestic launch industry. HR 2674 is making progress in the House but effort on our part is needed. Hearings have been held in the House and now the bill is waiting to go to 'mark up' where amendments are added. A big problem is on the Senate side: some Senator must introduce a Senate version for the bill to become law. Things to do are: 1. Write or call your representative and ask them to: A. Cosponsor HR2674. B. Speak to Congressman Nelson of Florida about sending the bill to mark up. 2. Ask to meet with your representative on this issue (we will tell you how to do that next month). 3. Call Congressman Nelson's office ((202) 225-3671) and ask him to send HR 2674 to markup. 4. Write your Senators and ask them introduce a Senate version of HR 2674. Finally, if you need help or have ideas for columns feel free to contact: Allen Sherzer (313) 769-4108 (work) (313) 973-0941 (home) aws@iti.org (Internet) Tim Kyger (202) 225-2415 (work) (703) 548-1664 (home) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Cthulhu for President - | | aws@iti.org | If you're tired of choosing the LESSER of 2 evils | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 90 20:13:44 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 02/05/90 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monday, February 5, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Monday, February 5..... United Press reports that four U.S. astronauts have accepted an invitation to witness a manned Soviet space launch, tour cosmonaut training facilities and observe the Soviet's mission control center. The visit was arranged by chief Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov and accepted by astronaut chief Dan Brandenstein. Brandstein will be accompanied on the visit by JSC'S Deputy Director P. J. Weitz, and astronauts Ron Grabe and Jerry Ross. The four arrive in Moscow February 9. They will travel to the Soviet launch facility at Bakinour to view the Soviet launch February 11 or 12...then go to the mission control center near Moscow. The quartet leaves Moscow February 14. Meanwhile, the Washington Post says U.S. and Soviet officials are discussing a swap in which a U.S. astronaut would fly aboard the Mir space station and a cosmonaut would fly aboard the U.S. Space Shuttle. The post reports that Associate Deputy Administrator Sam Keller discussed the proposal at a joint space science working group meeting last December. The story says the exchange flights could come as soon as mid-1992. The proposal will be reviewed by the National Space Council. USA today says the Johnson Space Center is looking for 20 men between the ages of 20 and 40 to take part in a unique experiment to test a device designed to help astronauts battle so-called "space legs" caused by the lack of gravity in space. The men would spend a month in bed in an artificial gravity sleeper that rotates 18 to 20 times a minute to create an artifical gravity pull. The Galileo spacecraft passes close to the cloud tops of Venus this Saturday, February 11. It will take high resolution pictures of the Venusian cloud tops...search for lightning and study the planet's atmospheric gases. The next major leg on it's complex flight to Jupiter will be an Earth flyby in late December. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hear the NASA budget proposal for FY '91 for the first time tomorrow. NASA Administrator Truly will present the administration's $15.1 billion budget proposal to the committee. * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Thursday, February 8...... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. Friday, February 9...... 12:00 noon Galileo encounter with Venus news conference from Jet Propulsion Laboratory. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 90 23:14:50 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Re: metric vs. imperial units In article <1990Feb5.162645.1272@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >> the most metric nations still use feet and knots in the air. France, even. > I remember reading somewhere that the USSR they report altitudes in >meters. What happened during the Apolo/Soyuz joint missions? Presumably >the two sets of mission controllers had to agree on one or another set of >units, not to mention the folks who built the docking adaptor? One story I heard about the docking adaptor was that the drawings were all wrong. A visiting U.S. technician, upon examining the docking mechanism of the Soyuz, thought something was wrong. He took down some dimensions and upon arriving home in the U.S. found his intuition was right. The design was changed and worked fine after that. I relate this story as it came to me from a TRW technician from the environmental test cell area, I cannot verify its accuracy however... -- Albion H. Bowers bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Aerodynamics: The ONLY way to fly! Live to ski, ski to live... ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 90 15:06:33 GMT From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: More Info On SSX In article <5509@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: >In addition, the Lunar Society plans to buy three to support its >lunar colony project. (SSX can be refueled in orbit and travel >anywhere in the solar system. Nine SSX tanker flights would be >required to refuel one SSX in orbit for a round-trip lunar flight.) Two questions... (1) how much liquid hydrogen evaporates during this trip, and (2) how many tanker flights would be required with lunar LOX production? Sounds nifty. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 90 16:52:01 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency In article <466@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >| If you want really high exhaust velocities, antimatter is better... We >| (probably) know how to make antihydrogen cheaply enough... > > I think that's correct, but do we know how to store the antihydrogen >well enough to make this interesting in any current timeframe. We can't order antimatter storage facilities off the shelf from General Antimatter Inc. :-) Substantial engineering work would have to be done. But the physicists store very small amounts for days at a time at high velocity, and there doesn't appear to be any big problem in dealing with larger amounts at lower (i.e. zero) velocity. It looks to be practical. Current vacuum technology is adequate, the physicists already have designs for deceleration to near-zero velocity, and non-contact handling techniques of several kinds can be demonstrated in the laboratory. It could probably be done in a few years if someone felt like funding it in a major way. (There was a serious attempt, a few years ago, to get SDI to fund a big push on antimatter space propulsion. Three phases: (1) engineering; (2) pilot plant producing enough antimatter to test-fire an engine; (3) production plant. Too long-term for them, alas -- no payoff for 10-15 years.) -- SVR4: every feature you ever | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology wanted, and plenty you didn't.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 90 16:39:08 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency In article <48777968.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: >>We (probably) know how to make antihydrogen cheaply enough... > >A question or three. Given all the flack aimed at NASA, who is "we"? Mankind. >And roughly what would be "cheaply enough"? "Viable" means "doable for >one program", or "an alternative to conventional propulsion for evermore"? Antimatter would have to be spectacularly cheap to be viable for launches to orbit. For in-space propulsion, however, at $50M/mg (yes, fifty million dollars per milligram) it is cheaper than chemical fuels lifted from Earth. At $20M/mg, it is cheaper than fission rockets. At $10M/mg it beats fusion. How much it would actually cost is open to debate, since the high-energy physicists (who run the only current antimatter factories) have different priorities and their equipment isn't ideal for volume production. There appear to be no fundamental barriers, last I heard, to bringing it in at $10M/mg or less. -- SVR4: every feature you ever | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology wanted, and plenty you didn't.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 90 18:01:40 GMT From: eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!ccvax.ucd.ie!h235_022@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Subject: ... ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 90 00:59:13 GMT From: agate!bigbang.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Subject: Re: Grassroots Space "Radicals" Can we take this into email and off the net? NOW? -george ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 90 02:44:13 GMT From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >... f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Gellis) writes: >>... anti-matter sounds as if it involves technical >>problems that make fusion engines look like tinker toys... >The fun part is, it may actually be the other way around! Really? But we already have a proven method of releasing unlimited amounts of fusion energy -- hydrogen bombs. Dyson designed an H-bomb propelled interstellar spacecraft years ago. It had low acceleration, but it could reach .01 c. I believe it used hydrogen bombs pushing against a copper plate, which was cooled by radiation. A magnetic nozzle scheme might have better performance. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 90 03:24:23 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Subject: Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency In article <1990Feb2.182755.20167@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: | If you want really high exhaust velocities, antimatter is better. The | idea of antimatter rockets is now being taken very seriously. We | (probably) know how to make antihydrogen cheaply enough to make them | viable. I think that's correct, but do we know how to store the antihydrogen well enough to make this interesting in any current timeframe. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #13 *******************