Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 05:00:27 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #193 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 13 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 193 Today's Topics: 3 Booster Questions Clinton and Space Funding Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? (3 msgs) Maximum Interplanetary Launch Velocity? NASA working on Apollo rerun New lunar spacecraft overpopulation Pluto Direct Propulsion Options QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options (2 msgs) RL-10 Rockwell & Lockheed investigate Soyuz as "interim rescue vehicle" for SSF Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...) Technology development Terraforming needs to begin now Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:15:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: 3 Booster Questions Newsgroups: sci.space In article , jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes... >wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > >>In response to Josh's statment about single engines for the booster phase of an >>HLV. > >>Josh the NLS one booster which as an Atlas II class launcher only uses one >>STME booster (600,000 lbs thrust) for 20,000 lbs to orbit. > >[Stuff Deleted] > >>Dennis, University of Alabama Huntsville > >I know Dennis. However, I don't consider this a Heavy Lift Vehicle. I can't >calulate how much a single F-1 can put into orbit without knowing what else >you have in mind, but I don't think the extra thrust is enough to put it in >the HLV class either. > > The Baby Saturn with an STME upper stage is between 52-65,000 lbs to LEO, depending on the materials used in the stages themselves. This is more than a Titan IV at a fraction of the cost. Even if I make Allen happy and add 20 million per launch, the costs are still only 75-85 million per launch. With this lift capability we get two Hughes 601's to GEO. This replaces two Atlas IIAs launches with one baby saturn. You design the baby saturn to take Two F1As from the beginning by stretching the tanks (this is the least expensive method of incremental improvement for all launchers, proven by GD and MacDac) Also, you have the plumbing and launch platform set up for it. Then for a very small incremental cost you get 2 F1A'a and Two or One STME's on the upper stage for about 110,000 to 125,000 lbs to orbit. This is certainly in the small HLV range and is the same or a little more than Titan V or HLV Delta. Then This sets the stage for incremental improvement II. You tool for a Short fat booster for a Three Engine F1A and STME bird. Same pads same infrastructure same engines. The only cost is the new jigs for the larger diameter tanks. Then you can icrementally grow to the full Saturn V configuration as the market evolves to need the demand. This is the pattern of all of Allen's HLV plans BUT with the use of a far more powerful and flexible system for improvments in mass to orbit. Also the system is far more environmentally friendly by having no pesky polluting Ammonium Perchlorate solid boosters. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 92 19:47:02 GMT From: Vignes Gerard M Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Bill Clinton claims he will cut taxes, balance the budget, and increase social spending. We all know those are empty campaign promises, but we also know that Clinton and Gore are hostile to technology and research spending and especially to projects involving space exploration and astronomy. If you've not yet done so, please register to vote. There's still time. When election day comes, please get out and vote. It's your right AND your duty. A non-vote is not a form of protest; it's a clear signal that you're happy with things just the way they are and you really don't care anyway. Don't stay home that day just because you're disgusted, and let a pitifully small percentage of people determine our nation's future. -- pssres12@ucs.usl.edu Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:57:26 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >>Let me key you in: Starvation in Ethopia and Somalia is due to political >>warfare and strife, not because there's a lack of food production. We're not >>going to starve ourselves off the planet. > I've always wondered about logic like this. I suppose the increasing > population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus > making food available? Sure. Makes sense to me. If there's food in the > grain elevator they have no excuse for going around and starving themselves > to they? Let's try again. To first order, the density of population in sub-saharan Africa is not the cause of food shortages there. Reducing the population in Somalia by 50% will not reduce the fraction of people starving. This is because people produce food as well as consume it. Your non sequitur appears to be the following: If there is overpopulation, then people would starve. People are starving. Therefore, there is overpopulation. Societies in Somalia and Ethiopia have always had to cope with intermittent food supplies. They've had successful ways of doing this, employing private stockpiles and liquidation of lifestock during times of drought. These strategies are vulnerable to interference from despotic governments or general anarchy. Looters in Somalia have destroyed much of the country's infrastructure: water supplies, agriculture equipment, livestock. Is it surprising that people die when the social life support system on which they depend is destroyed? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:38:39 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >>>Let me key you in: Starvation in Ethopia and Somalia is due to political >>>warfare and strife, not because there's a lack of food production. We're not >>>going to starve ourselves off the planet. >> I've always wondered about logic like this. I suppose the increasing >> population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus >> making food available? Sure. Makes sense to me. If there's food in the >> grain elevator they have no excuse for going around and starving themselves >> to they? >Your non sequitur appears to be the following: If there is >overpopulation, then people would starve. People are starving. >Therefore, there is overpopulation. I think my question was legitimate. Do you believe the situation is going to improve as population gets larger? I'm not so worried about "overpopulation" per se. What I do believe is that allowing people to have control of the number of children they raise will result in a lower growth rate, which I believe to be an improvement. -- Josh Hopkins "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to j-hopkins@uiuc.edu miss the whole meaning of an epoch. Space is such a challenge" - James A. Michener ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:02:25 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: > I think my question was legitimate. Do you believe the situation is going to > improve as population gets larger? I'm not so worried about "overpopulation" > per se. What I do believe is that allowing people to have control of the > number of children they raise will result in a lower growth rate, which I > believe to be an improvement. I see no reason why it should get worse. To first order, and within limits, the population doesn't matter, because food production increases as you have more labor input (Africa is actually not that densely populated a continent; in Zaire(?), for example, only 6% of arable land is being farmed, although that is partly due to insane government price controls). Conversely, if the social organization is such that the normal food production is disrupted, reducing population does not help. Larger populations also enable economies of scale that increase efficiency. For example, electricity distribution, water distribution and transportation all become cheaper per capita as population density increases. I view blaming starvation on overpopulation as, at best, a game of blame-the-victim, and, at worst, an expression of lazy-minded racism. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 92 09:49:24 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Maximum Interplanetary Launch Velocity? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <65698@cup.portal.com>, lordSnooty@cup (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes: >Relative to the Earth, what is the highest velocity we >can currently boost to for interplanetary missions? - is >this significantly higher than typical orbit speeds? It's hard to answer this question since it's somewhat vague. Using the largest current boosters, and a sufficiently small payload mass, we can get higher velocities than have been employed so far. Working from memory, I recall that Ulysses left Earth with the highest speed, which I believe was slightly over twice the orbital velocity of the shuttle that launched it. (Any Earth escape mission is going to have to achieve a velocity which is greater than orbital velocity by a factor of at least the square root of 2). After a day or two, the velocity with respect to the Earth is less interesting than velocity with respect to the Sun. >Would a gravity assist from the Moon make much difference, >even if repeated? Some difference, I'd guess. The ISEE spacecraft, as it was being turned into the ICE spacecraft (its mission was being changed from monitoring the solar wind to flying by a comet) made many passes by the moon for gravity assist. Its destination, however, didn't require a great velocity change, so I'm not sure that the moon is really a great source of energy; it's just what's available. >Is the maximum speed likely to change drastically due to >improved technologies in the near future? The improved technologies which would make a difference are various forms of nuclear or electric propulsion. Using these efficient, low thrust methods would allow dramatically higher velocities to be reached (I expect the whole paradigm of interplanetary travel would change from near instantaneous acceleration/coast/near instantaneous deceleration to something more like slow acceleration/slow deceleration). As to "the near future", there are no such technologies under development, although research and study has been going on for the last 30 years or so. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:24:38 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun Newsgroups: sci.space Those expecting a lunar base out of NASA's proposed "return to the moon" are in for a big disappointment, according to a recent Aviation Week article. It describes FLO, which stands for "First Lunar Operations", apparently because it repeats in form and function our first lunar operations, Apollo. The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in an enlarged Apollo-style capsule. The craft would land directly on the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the equator. The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the size of Saturn 5! The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo. Geology treks using an Apollo-style rover (again made larger to hold four astronauts) would be the main justification. They would try out tiny experiments in making LOX and lunar soil bricks, as a sop to those who want a real lunar base. No production plants, no mass driver, and no biosphere. Most time at the "base" would be spent by the astronauts huddled in their capsules, studying each other. There would be no revenue or commercial interest in the project. Like Apollo, these missions would be utterly dependent on Earth for food, water, and shelter. The lander would consist both of LOX/LH propellants and storable propellants for the return trip, a rather expensive, kluged combination. The space suits would be designed from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS. No estimate of cost was given, and perhaps none is needed, given the political unviability of the project. The project requires a new upper stage, a new habitation capsule, a new 4-propellant lander, a new rover, new spacesuits, along with the various experiments. They propose a monster rocket 1.5 times the capability of Saturn 5, which would not be used by anybody outside NASA. Thus, I would give a conservative guestimate of the cost of Apollo plus the cost of SSF, or $270 billion. In an attempt to mollify Congress, NASA proposes to take the money out of other NASA projects, but this cost is 19 times the entire annual NASA budget, and NASA already admits to having more projects than it can fund. NASA has already cut the planetary exploration budget down to $300 million per year, one-one-thousandth (1/1,000) the cost of this project to study the geology of one body. No doubt clever accountants will give us a lower number in an attempt to make the project politically viable, but that number will deserve a critical look. As will the rationale for repeating the exciting-once but dead-end missions of Apollo. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:23:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: New lunar spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space In article <2AB11BA8.AE2@deneva.sdd.trw.com>, hangfore@spf.trw.com (John Stevenson) writes... >In article <1992Sep6.013607.8183@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> >Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes: > >[stuff deleted] > >> While old data sets often contain overlooked gems, for some questions, >> they will not help at all. The Lunar Orbiters did optical imaging from >> roughly equatorial orbits about the Moon; if you wanted to look for >> lunar water, you'd need a polar-orbiting spacecraft with infrared >> imaging and better, also spectroscopic instrumentation - not unlike >> what's going on the Mars Observer. >> >Lunar Orbiters 5 and 6 were in polar orbits. The radio navigation data >collected (which would be used to develop models of the lunar >gravitational field) are either lost or stored on punch cards and so far >unretrievable. JPL was attempting to recover this data in support of the >Lunar Observer mission, which has since been cancelled. The loss of such >pricey and important data is representative of the post Apollo era. :-( Correction: That is Lunar Orbiters IV and V that were in polar orbits. Also there is a vast quantity of gravity map information about the moon. The problem with it is that the data is of fairly low resolution, hence the gravity maps are not all that accurate. >The lunar resource mapping mission by SEI out of JSC selected two >contractors for the next phase (not TRW :-( ) but, of course,the >congresscritters have decimated the SEI budget. Don't hold your breath. > The contractors selected were Boeing and Martin Marietta. LRM is in hibernation till after the election and slick Willie and Blood and Gore have both said specifically that lunar missions would not be funded by their administration. Also, it was the senator from Arkansas that led the fight to cut all funds from SSF and divert the money to Vetrans and HUD. Tell me now, who is blowing smoke about supporting space with nothing behind it? Dennis, UNiversity of Alabama in Huntsville. "My friends take the advice of the candidate of the other party, do not inhale!" Ronny Raygun at the Republican convention. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 92 17:28:08 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: overpopulation Newsgroups: sci.space roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts) writes: >In article tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes: >>Let's see: China and India are hovering on the raged edge of subsistence >>right now. Most of Africa is one meal away from starvation. -- Why that means >>that more than half of the world is bearly producing enough food to exist >>and no more. >Ah yes, we use the examples of two nations with incredibly corrupt and >inefficient systems of political economy, and a continent that's been >wracked by tribal and civil warfare, and assume the whole planet acts that >way. Very good. Fine. So it's their fault. That makes everything OK. I actually thought the post was reasonable, factually based and quite rational until I came to this line. >The trick is technological and economic development, not forcing >Africans at gunpoint not to have babies. Coments like this blow me out of the water. Yes, making everyone a first world citizen is the long term solution, but you can cut growth drastically without using guns. Contraception is _not_ available in Africa. A very large percentage of women would prefer to have fewer children if that was an option. Given that population growth negates much of the progress made by foreign aid shouldn't we be encouraging family planning rather than giving out short term help? -- Josh Hopkins "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to j-hopkins@uiuc.edu miss the whole meaning of an epoch. Space is such a challenge" - James A. Michener ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 12:19:22 -0500 From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: > >Just out of curiosity, is there a way to convince them to use post-early- >1960's technology, like an ion drive of some sort? And Henry replies: \Not until somebody space-qualifies modern hardware of that sort, so it can /be done without major risk of cost or schedule overrun. This particular \mission is time-critical because of the impending freezeout of Pluto's /atmosphere, so the fewer unknowns the better. But they apparently intend to use very new modern hardware for the sensors. Why is this not "risky" but propulsion is? \There is also a serious technical problem with using electrical propulsion /for this particular mission: what's your power supply? RTGs are too heavy \for major power outputs, and solar doesn't work so well in that neighborhood. /It would have to be a nuclear reactor. A sound idea, but not something that \can be done in a hurry. Use solar. I'm currently thinking along the lines of a Pluto flyby, but with ion drives instead of solid rockets for the final kick, so maybe, _maybe_, they could have a higher instrument payload than 5 kg. \There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology /mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Using advanced propulsion, instead of just another set of solid rockets, would, if it turned out to be a mistake, at least be a _new_ mistake. Well? -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560 --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <-- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 92 17:09:02 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options Newsgroups: sci.space mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko) writes: >Given that there are two bodies (Pluto and Charon), would it be >possible to lose enough energy by sling-shotting around them >repeatedly (the opposite to what's been done by the Voyagers, Ulysses, >etc., at Jupiter)? Or are they too small to have enough of a >gravitational effect? Pluto and Charon are teeny and light. Pluto is something like .002 Earth masses and Charon is even smaller. So no. Unless you were going _really_ slow - which these probes won't be - you can't use gravity to slow you down. Repeatedly isn't an option since you can't do it more than once unless you've already lost enough velocity to stay in the system. -- Josh Hopkins "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to j-hopkins@uiuc.edu miss the whole meaning of an epoch. Space is such a challenge" - James A. Michener ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:34:06 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep11.154301@cs.man.ac.uk> mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko) writes: >Given that there are two bodies (Pluto and Charon), would it be >possible to lose enough energy by sling-shotting around them >repeatedly (the opposite to what's been done by the Voyagers, Ulysses, >etc., at Jupiter)? Or are they too small to have enough of a >gravitational effect? The velocity change you can get out of a fly-by is proportional to the body's surface escape velocity (plus a whole string of other issues that amount to a factor of 0 to 2, or so...) Pluto's surface escape velocity is 1.1km/s, so at best you might hope to get around 2km/s velocity change out of a fly-by. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 92 14:55:56 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: RL-10 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep11.172322.2177@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <9209111320.AA13915@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > >>-Neither. The recent failures have been Centaur problems. They're a bit >>-surprising, since the RL10 has been a very reliable engine. > >>RL-10 failures? What does that do to Allen's statistics for the reliability >>of the engine to be used for DCX? > >Even with the failures it's still extreemly reliable. However, it is not >a problem because in both cases the problem was that the engine failed >to fire, not go boom. So all DCX need is enough engines for an engine >out capability (which it has). > > Allen On Atlas' first flight, June 11, 1957, it went boom. On Atlas-Centaur's first flight, May 8, 1962 the Centaur went boom. The next to last Centaur went boom on a March 26, 1987 launch attempt. The last Atlas-Centaur was so badly damaged on the pad while technicians were trying to repair a stubborn leak in the Centaur that it was scrapped. In between, the Ranger and Surveyor programs were delayed by numerous problems with the Centaur. And the Centaur was replaced by the PAM or IUS designs for all Shuttle launches since the Centaur was considered too dangerous to fly on the Shuttle. Titan first flew February 6, 1959 and they still go boom occasionally. Three of five 34D's failed. Since 1960, 12 Delta boosters have gone boom. These 30 year old designs have not had stellar success records. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:35:11 GMT From: Jonathan Hardwick Subject: Rockwell & Lockheed investigate Soyuz as "interim rescue vehicle" for SSF Newsgroups: sci.space I can't find the end of the previous "Soyuz can do emergency crew return for SSF -- no it can't -- yes it can" thread, but this just appeared in the "Weekly Science Summary" on clari.tw.science (copyright Clarinet, clarinews@clarinet.com): > Rockwell International says it has signed an agreement to investigate >use of the Russian Soyuz (SAH'-yooz) spacecraft as an interim rescue >vehicle for the Space Station Freedom. > The company says the discussions will be held in concert with NASA. > Last week, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company announced a similar >pact with N-P-O Energia... the builder of the Soyuz. Lockheed and >Rockwell are the NASA contractors conducting studies for the space >station's rescue vehicle. > Space Station Freedom is NOT expected to be permanently occupied >until after 1999. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 92 15:10:03 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...) Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space In article <1992Sep11.182105.8394@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1992Sep11.020949.12286@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > >>Goldin says we should consider the Shuttle program to last "at least" >>until 2005, but not much beyond that. 12 years != forever. > >we could probobally make it last until 2012 or so. At that time, and >only then unless radical changes are made, will the funds be available >to build the replacement the government way. Add another fifteen years >to actually build it and we are looking at 35 years. > >I'm getting on in years and for me that 35 years just might be >forever. So instead you want to stretch designs, Titan and Delta, that are already 30 years old one more time. No thanks. We can count on general technology advances in the next 12-35 years that will allow us to build something *better* than those roman candles when we actually *need* them. You and Nick both will have long been dust in the wind before the solar system is settled by ice miners and Martians. They won't appreciate being stuck with Hudson Hornets when they could have a 300ZX. Gary Gary ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 92 15:29:41 GMT From: Jim Bowery Subject: Technology development Newsgroups: sci.space 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: > An example of the best way to develop this new technology can also be > seen in the fridge example. Currently, GE is offering a huge cash > prize for refridgeration technology based on something other than CFCs, > with comparable or better efficiency. I think the prize is $3 million, > with a bonus for improved efficiency, but is was a while since I heard > about it, so I may have the exact figure wrong. > > If the goals in space were as easily defined, this would probably be a > cheaper way for NASA to develop launchers, etc., than the current system. Clearly, this is feasible. I suggest people try defining some prizes. -- INTERNET: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 92 17:14:32 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: Terraforming needs to begin now Newsgroups: sci.space There are two issue that need to be adressed before anyone is going to take this seriously. 1) Is this cheaper than massive planting projects? 2) Is the cost of the enormous project going to be even partly paid back by the increase in farmland? My guess would be no. Keep in mind that the countries that need this are dirt poor. Come to think of it, all the countries of the world seem to be broke about now. Maybe you should consider more realistic options. For example, just turn the solar energy you're going to be using into power and sell it to buy food with. -- Josh Hopkins "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to j-hopkins@uiuc.edu miss the whole meaning of an epoch. Space is such a challenge" - James A. Michener ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 193 ------------------------------