Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Sun, 7 Jul 91 01:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 7 Jul 91 01:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #798 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 798 Today's Topics: Re: Mining El Dorado Tommy Mac lonesome fro reactors EJASA Volume 2 - August 1990 to July 1991 Re: SPACE Digest V13 #639 Re: Business in space Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jun 91 14:52:05 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale.edu!ox.com!fmsrl7!wreck@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ron Carter) Subject: Re: Mining El Dorado In article <12209@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >Sorry you would not like to have me as a mining engineer ! >I have gotten abosolutely contradicotry responses from various >epeople. Some say that a nuke would totally destroy the asteroid. >Some say it would have absoultely no effect. Both groups are wrong. >I would like to completely retract the idea of using nukes >for mining purposes. Several people have pointed out to me that >it would make the ore radioactive, so the materials would become >unsafe to use in manned space applications. This is only partially true. The only material which would be rendered radioactive is a thin layer of the surface which is in line-of-sight of the explosion itself. It receives neutrons, gammas and fission products which will activate or contaminate the asteroid. However, this material would simultaneously absorb the energy of the gammas, X-rays and fission products, which will vaporize a substantial thickness and send it off into space at high speed. (This is the reaction mass for the pulsed-fission rocket.) The activated nuclei and fission products will fly off with it. The only residual radioactivity will be from neutron-activated material from the last few explosions, which lies below the layer removed by those final blasts. This could be removed in other ways, or just never mined at all. Radioactive dirt could still have uses, as reaction mass for example. > Similarly, nukes should not be used within the atmosphere of >Mars since it may make that planet uninhabitable for future >colonists or explorers. Agreed that nuclear explosives should not be used on the Martian surface or in the atmosphere without compelling reasons. Nuclear reactors are another matter. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 21:16 CDT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Tommy Mac lonesome fro reactors Original_To: SPACE,jnet%"18084TM@MSU" Tommy Mac {18084TM@MSU.bitnet) writes: >I don't even have a nuclear reactor in my STATE, becuase of environmentalists. >Do you think that dark and evil force will just go away? Tommy, unless things have greatly changed since I taught the radiochemistry lab at Michigan State, you have a nuclear reactor on your CAMPUS. It's a little General Atomics TRIGA teaching reactor, a few kilowatts, suitable as a source for neutron-activation analysis, among other things. Over in some engineering building-- I don't remember the name anymore. Snoop around the nuclear engineering faculty and students if you want to find out about it. Yes, It gives off a blue glow from Cherenkov radiation. Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking Bill Higgins pictures, radio, television, bouncing radar Fermilab vibrations off the moon, rocket ships, and HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET atom-splitting-- all in our time. But nobody HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV has yet been able to figure out a music SPAN: 43011::HIGGINS holder for a marching piccolo player. --Meredith Willson, 1948 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 91 17:06:46 GMT From: pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!rburns.enet.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (Larry Klaes) Subject: EJASA Volume 2 - August 1990 to July 1991 THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC VOLUME 2 - August 1990 to July 1991 ASA MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (EJASA) is published monthly by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated. The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of amateur and professional astronomy and space exploration, and to the social and educational needs of its members. ASA membership application is open to all with an interest in astronomy and space exploration. Members receive the Journal of the ASA (hardcopy sent through United States Mail), the Astronomical League's REFLECTOR magazine, and may additionally purchase discount subscriptions to ASTRONOMY, DEEP SKY, ODYSSEY, SKY & TELESCOPE, and TELESCOPE MAKING magazines. For information on membership, you may contact the Society at any of the following addresses: Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (ASA) c/o Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) Georgia State University (GSU) Atlanta, Georgia 30303 U.S.A. asa@chara.gsu.edu ASA BBS: (404) 985-0408, 300/1200 Baud. or telephone the Society Recording at (404) 264-0451 to leave your address and/or receive the latest Society news. ASA Officers and Council - President - Don Barry Vice President - Nils Turner Secretary - Ken Poshedly Treasurer - Alan Fleming Board of Advisors - Edward Albin, Bill Bagnuolo, Jim Bitsko Council - Jim Bitsko, Bill Crane, Toni Douglas, Eric Greene, Larry Klaes, Tano Scigliano, Bob Vickers, Michael Wiggs, Rob Williams ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS - Article submissions to the EJASA on astronomy and space exploration are most welcome. Please send your on-line articles in ASCII format to Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net addresses or the above Society addresses: klaes@rburns.enet.dec.com or - ...!decwrl!rburns.enet.dec.com!klaes or - klaes%rburns.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com or - klaes%rburns.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net You may also use the above net addresses for EJASA backissue requests, letters to the editor, and ASA membership information. When sending your article submissions, please be certain to include either a network or regular mail address where you can be reached, a telephone number, and a brief biographical sketch. DISCLAIMER - Submissions are welcome for consideration. Articles submitted, unless otherwise stated, become the property of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Inc. Though the articles will not be used for profit, they are subject to editing, abridgment, and other changes. Copying or reprinting of the EJASA, in part or in whole, is encouraged, provided clear attribution is made to the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, the Electronic Journal, and the author(s). This Journal is Copyright (c) 1991 by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Inc. ################################################################## EJASA Volume 2 - August 1990 to July 1991 Volume 2, Number 1 - August 1990 * A Southern Travel Diary: An Observer's Tale - Don Barry Volume 2, Number 2 - September 1990 * Stellafane 1990: A First-Timer's View - Lawrence M. Geary * Pegasus: Winged Horse of Autumn - Brian Mason Volume 2, Number 3 - October 1990 * Kitt Peak and McDonald Observatories: Impressions - Russell Whigham * Low-Budget Astronomy - Tony Murray Volume 2, Number 4 - November 1990 * Mad for the Stars: Visions of Astroutopiae, Part One - Craig M. Levin * Andromeda, Lady of Fall - Brian Mason Volume 2, Number 5 - December 1990 * The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part One - Andrew J. LePage * Mad for the Stars: Visions of Astroutopiae, Part Two - Craig M. Levin Volume 2, Number 6 - January 1991 * The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part Two - Andrew J. LePage Volume 2, Number 7 - February 1991 * Saturn's Great White Spot - Don Barry * When the Light Gets in Your Eyes, You Shouldn't Have to Drive to the Country - James Smith and Ken Poshedly * Stephan's Quintet - Bob Bunge Volume 2, Number 8 - March 1991 * 1990 Georgia Star Party Retrospective - Compiled from comments of GSP participants * Aperture Arrogance - Eric Greene Volume 2, Number 9 - April 1991 * The Mystery of ZOND 2 - Andrew J. LePage * In Search of the Horsehead Nebula - Eric Greene Volume 2, Number 10 - May 1991 * The Great Moon Race: New Findings - Andrew J. LePage * Astronomy and the Family - Larry Klaes Volume 2, Number 11 - June 1991 * Sir William Herschel and the Natural History of the Heavens - Keith M. Parsons * Curbing Light Pollution in Ohio - Robert Bunge Volume 2, Number 12 - July 1991 * Theory and Fact in the Cosmological Dark Matter Debate - Keith M. Parsons * Solar Eclipses in History - Ken Poshedly THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC Copyright (c) 1991 - ASA ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 91 14:09:17 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!aplcomm!tedwards@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edwards Thomas G S1A x8297) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #639 In article <9106212225.AA16709@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu writes: >Re: The Un-Plan >Nevertheless, you've left out on important point; >SPS _is_ fusion. >It does have some VERY attractive advantages to the planet-bould fusion >that you are thinking of. >2) You don't have to worry about the pile's stability (for a few G-Years) But just wait until the sun begins to nova and we experience the biggest nuclear accident ever :)! (Oh no, I see vision of NIMBY anti-nuke activists trying to sabotage the sun...) -Tom ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 91 19:13:28 GMT From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Business in space In article <3008@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >This is simply ideology talking. There is no evidence that large scale >capital is available for space investment. There is no plausible scheme >that starts from where we are and bootstraps us to large scale industrial >use of space based solely on private capital. As Nick is fond of pointing >out, the comsats are the only commercially viable industry that is space >based and primarily privately funded. And that industry depends in large >part on infrastructure developed and paid for by government funds in it's >previous generation. Without infrastructure and technical demonstration >projects, private capital in the large quanities needed for industrial >development of space is simply not going to be risked by the private sector. > I speak from personal experience here. Boeing's Board of Directors was willing to invest $1 billion to develop the Jarvis launch vehicle for use by Hughes and other satellite builders. I know this because my boss at the time was one of the people who made the presentation to the BOD. The program did not go ahead because (1) we needed to get all three satellite builders (Ford, Hughes, and RCA) to commit as customers, which would have given us a monopoly on comsat launch, which would violate anti-trust laws, and (2) the only other customer with lots of payloads, the US Air Force, was not interested in a commercial rocket over which they had no control of the design requirements (even though it was 50% cheaper that way). There was every reason to believe that given the customers, the capital was available. My second example from personal experience was the ISF. Westinghouse was the prime contractor for Space Industries. Space Industries was able to raise $400 million in capital, part of it from contractors, part from the financial markets. Boeing was a subcontractor for the docking equipment and the equipment racks. We proposed to develop them for the ISF by 1992, and later use the same design for the Space Station. This way the hardware would have had a space test before Freedom used it. A massively useful thing to do with the ISF would be to launch the life support system along with a couple of racks of animals, to give it a real test in space BEFORE the manned crew rely on it to breathe. Again, NASA saw it as a competitor to Freedom, and refused to sign up as the 'anchor tenant', so the ISF died for lack of customer. I suspect that if the ISF was done internally by NASA, and had a name like 'Space Station Life Support System Orbital Test-Bed', it could probably have been sold and be flying in a couple of years, even with Space Industries as the builder. Plausible Scheme: Phase I: Small Mach 2-3 mechanical catapult with liquid-air augmented fixed ramjet "X-40" spaceplane. Seats pilot and 1 passenger. Vehicle mass about 6000 lb max takeoff wt. Funded with commercial sponsors (like Coors 'Silver Bullet'), and private sponsors that want to fly faster than an SR-71 (Mach 3.5), and perhaps get 'astronaut' status (requires 50 miles altitude). Cost in The few millions, using mostly aircraft components except for ramjet and liquid air injector system. Function is to demonstrate catapult & spaceplane work. Phase II: Delete people and substitute autopilot and off-the shelf missile (military) to achieve sub-orbital sounding rocket capability. The missile is fired at the peak of the spaceplane trajectory. This should undercut regular sounding rockets (0.5-2 M$) since the spaceplane and catapult are reuseable. The missile should be in the 0.1M$ range each Phase III: Replace off-the shelf missile with rugged, reuseable liquid propellant projectile (using e.g. Nitric Acid Kerosine propellants). Lowers cost because now entire system is reuseable. Sell copies of system to University research centers and small countries that want low-cost per launch sounding rocket flights. Market launch slots for smaller customers. Phase IV: Replace small catapult and spaceplane with a light gas gun and fire the projectile to higher speeds than the Mach 6-7 that the catapult/spaceplane can reach. Put solid kick motor plus payload on top of projectile and get ~10 kg to low orbit. Deliver fuel to Freedom, worth on order of 200M$/yr by replacing 1 shuttle launch. Phase V: Upgrade gas gun (extend barrel, add 2nd chamber). Projectile now can get to orbit with little or no kick motor, increases payload to 50-100kg. Deliver small robots to orbit which collect payloads and via teleoperation start constructing useful things like: Pahse VI: Orbital tether capable of reaching partway down from orbit. Electric propulsion system to maintain tether orbit. Projectile does not have to get to orbit any more, only to the bottom of the tether, further increasing payload capacity. Rough business numbers: Phase Capital required Revenue Generated I a few M$ a few M$ from sponsors II $2M to modify for missile $3M/yr @ 10 launches/yr III $6M for projectile $50M for 5 systems (2 Univ, 3 small countries) IV $10-20M $100M station refuel V $40M $500M station refuel + comsat upper stage fuel VI $100M 300 t/yr @ $3M/t=$900M/yr Dani Eder Boeing Advanced Civil Space Systems ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #798 *******************