Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 05:04:49 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #305 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 10 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 305 Today's Topics: All systems are what? All systems are what? (was Re: Mars Observer Update #2 - 10/07/92) ANNOUNCING: New Graduate Program in Architecture+Art+Technology Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase (2 msgs) Drop nuc waste into sun (2 msgs) LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap Military Funding NASA town meetings Re : Carl Sagan Telepresence the development and change of the soft-and-hardwsre programms for electronic computers and microcontrollers. Transportation on the Moon. what use is Freedom? (2 msgs) 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: 9 Oct 92 14:44:40 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: All systems are what? Newsgroups: sci.space -From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) -Subject: All systems are what? (was Re: Mars Observer Update #2 - 10/07/92) -Date: 8 Oct 92 17:45:14 GMT -Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory -In article <1992Oct7.234649.18675@news.arc.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: -> -> The updated spacecraft status, as reported by the Spacecraft Team, is -> that all subsystems are "Go". -Is this terminology really in use officially? It sounds like a holdover -from the days of Col. John "Shorty" Powers... Ungrammatical. One -should say "all systems are Going," no? -And what does it mean? If a subsystem is not "Go," what else could -it be? I mean, what other values X might "All subsystems are X" have? "No Go." I'm pretty sure that's the terminology they use when polling launch team members for a Shuttle or unmanned booster. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to rummage through my video tape collection just to find that out. Maybe next time I look at them or watch coverage of a new launch, I'll remember to check for that. According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the term "go" in this usage ("(adj.) functioning properly: being in good and ready condition ") dates from 1961. Sure, it sounds a little strange, but it contains fewer syllables than "spiffy" or "tubular" or "just peachy", and thus aids in more efficient systems polls. I consider the communications protocol that has evolved to handle time- and safety-critical operations such as launches to be a fascinating topic. It isn't exactly English - think of it as being a highly stylized subset of English, probably descended from military communications protocols. (Tango, X-ray, Niner, etc.) John Roberts | OK: adj [abbr. of "oll korrect", alter. of "all roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov | correct"] (1839): all right ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 92 04:10:48 GMT From: Steve Collins Subject: All systems are what? (was Re: Mars Observer Update #2 - 10/07/92) Newsgroups: sci.space Strange as it may seem to a grammerian, go, no-go calls are routinely made on the MO operations net. During the countdown, the spacecraft team systems lead polls all the SCT subsystems for their status. Each subsystem typically responds with something like : "AACS is GO" or "Propulsion is GO". The SCT systems lead is then polled in turn by a guy ( or gal) called "MARS ACE" and responds: "Spacecraft Team is GO". This process continues up the chain of command to the launch director who formally authorizes the launch. In the event that there was some drastic problem, you might respond with something like: AACS is NO-GO, but usually problems are worked and solved as you go along so, you hear stuff like : "AACS is GO except for the high gyro temp". In a way this is tradition from the early space program, but the formality of the language serves to clarify communications on the net. Saying "Nine-er" helps to distinguish "Five" from "Nine". For the most part, the com nets are pretty clear, but people do have problems with headsets and interference. I had the pleasure of being "on the console" during launch at the AACS (attitude and articulation control system) position for the Spacecraft team. The biggest problem is that you are listening to about 5 different networks at one time and trying to pick out all the information from all the conversations. By doing a formal GO, NO-GO poll, you avoid people saying :"well - er - I guess AACS is pretty much ready..." I've gotta say, after being into this space stuff since the time I could talk, it was really a kick to be there saying "AACS is GO", and know that there was a real spacecraft sitting on a pad at the cape pointed at Mars, and I was "in the loop". At liftoff, we lose telemetry from the spacecraft and most of the Spacecraft team ran to the conference room to watch the ascent on NASA select. The group was so proud and concerned and excited, it was like 40 people having a baby at the same time... Then the TOS data didn't come in... but that's a different story, Steve Collins Mars Observer Spacecraft Team (AACS) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 92 04:01:46 GMT From: Marcos Novak Subject: ANNOUNCING: New Graduate Program in Architecture+Art+Technology Newsgroups: sci.space ______________________________ ==================================== ANNOUNCEMENT ==================================== ______________________________ ADVANCED DESIGN RESEARCH Master of Architecture Post-Professional Program Master of Science in Architectural Studies Program Professor Marcos Novak, Director novak@vitruvius.ar.utexas.edu ==================================== ==================================== SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN ==================================== ==================================== This program is for students who are interested in exploring the ways in which advances in science, technology, theory and criticism are extending the range of the possible in the conception, production, execution and inhabitation of architecture. Emphasis is on pure rather than applied research, but this is advanced primarily through empirical and production-oriented methods, that is, through the experimentation with, the simulation, production, and testing of works such as drawings, models, prototypes, environments, performances, computer programs, etc., as well as their documentation. The aim of the program in Advanced Design Research is to anticipate and encourage developments in architectural theory and practice, to advance the body of architectural knowledge, and to produce researchers, artists, and practitioners capable of facing the challenges of an information era. Topics of study that students may pursue include: Computation and Composition; Music and Architecture; Shape Grammars and Other Formal Systems; Algorithmic Aesthetics; Art, Architecture and Technology; The Architecture of Cyberspace and Virtual Worlds; Embodied Virtuality; Intelligent Agents and Systems; Multi-Media(ted) Spaces; Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems in Design; Architecture and Artificial Life (Generative Methods); Architecture and Complexity; Advances in Architectural Visualization; Implications of Advances in Science and Technology; The Poetics of New Technologies. ==================================== Prerequisites: Applicants are expected to have either a strong background in the arts and documented interest and ability in the sciences, or a strong background in the sciences and documented interest and ability in the arts. The prerequisites listed below are given as an indication of the kind of preparation we are expecting They should not be seen as prohibitive Individuals with different backgrounds in related areas are encouraged to apply. ?Evidence of creative work in primary field of study ?Evidence of creative work in secondary field of study; ?Statement of intent; ?Letters of recommendation; ?Consultation; ?Students with Architecture and Architecture Theory backgrounds 3 Mathematics 3 Computer Programming 3 Physics 3 Art or Music Studio ?Students with Art, Design, and Music backgrounds 3 Mathematics or Physics 3 Computer Programming 3 History of Architecture 6 Architecture Studio ?Students with Mathematics and Science backgrounds 3 Computer Programming 6 Architecture, Art or Music Studio 3 Architecture, Art or Music History or Theory ?Students with Computer Science backgrounds 3 Architecture or Art History 3 Architecture, Art or Music Studio 3 Architecture, Art or Music Theory ==================================== Course Requirements ==================================== Option A (M.S.A.S.) Hours Course(s) 9 Theory of Architecture (ARC386K,L, M) 3 Research Methods and Topics Seminar (ARC 386N) 3 Music of Architecture Seminar (ARC 389 or 386M) 3 Poetics of New Technologies (ARC 389 or 386M) 6 Minor 6 Thesis (ARC 698) 30 hours ==================================== Option B (M.S.A.S.) or M. Arch. [Post-prof.]) Hours Course(s) 6 Theory of Architecture (ARC 386 K, L or L,M or K, M) 3 Research Methods and Topics Seminar (ARC 386N) 3 Music of Architecture Seminar (ARC 389 or 386M) 3 Poetics of New Technologies (ARC 389 or 386M) 6 Advanced Design Studio (ARC 696) 3 Independent Study (ARC 389) 6 Minor 6 Thesis (ARC 698) 36 hours ==================================== ==================================== For further information contact: Graduate Studies in Architecture SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Austin, Texas, 78712-1160 Telephone: (512) 471-1922 Fax: (512) 471-0716 ==================================== ==================================== ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:42:57 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct8.132114.22408@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > >You provided an estimate of the cost which >was totally based on unrealisticly high launch costs. This completely cracks me up. Actual commercial launch costs is "unrealistically high". What Allen wishes launch costs were is quite real, by comparison. :-) :-) You are also still completely missing the point that lower launch costs benefit every kind of space project, and do not change the comparison of lunar mining vs. alternatives. -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat //////// Breathe Free: vote Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 92 02:34:01 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct10.014257.7624@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >>You provided an estimate of the cost which >>was totally based on unrealisticly high launch costs. > >This completely cracks me up. Actual commercial launch costs >is "unrealistically high"... I didn't realize you were already signing contracts for this venture, Nick, so you could quote *actual* costs. Where did the funding come from? :-) "Actual commercial launch costs" for a few comsats a year are very different from what "actual commercial launch costs" *would be* for the sort of project under discussion. As Allen pointed out, there's more than enough money there for commercial development of a dozen new launch systems. Put that kind of volume business out for contract and costs *will* tumble. Using today's cost numbers for it is ridiculous, like estimating the materials costs for a 747 based on the prices Napoleon paid for aluminum. (Napoleon's dinner guests used gold tableware; *his* was aluminum, a far more expensive metal.) -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 92 04:27:35 GMT From: David Kinny Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun Newsgroups: sci.space sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes: >Nick Haines writes: [...] >> This is only one problem. The real reasons why we shouldn't `dispose' >> of nuclear waste by sending it into space are: >> >> (1) it's far too expensive to do (even if we just want to leave it in >> a parking orbit somewhere, the launch costs are absurd), >> (2) we may well want the waste again in the future, and it's cheaper >> to get to if it's on Earth, >> (3) crazy politicians will scream blue murder because they think it'll >> fall on their heads. It's not worth the trouble. >Finally, some decent reasons. Especially that first one. But roll on fusion >so we don't have to worry about what to do with waste. Why on earth do you think that fusion doesn't produce waste? Read up on the effects of neutron bombardment. Commercial fusion reactors will produce substantial amounts of waste, but it won't be in the form of spent fuel rods. >Stephen.. ..David ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 21:41:17 GMT From: Cameron Newham Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct9.091214.11323@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz writes: > > > This is only one problem. The real reasons why we shouldn't `dispose' > > of nuclear waste by sending it into space are: > > > > (1) it's far too expensive to do (even if we just want to leave it in > > a parking orbit somewhere, the launch costs are absurd), > > (2) we may well want the waste again in the future, and it's cheaper > > to get to if it's on Earth, > > (3) crazy politicians will scream blue murder because they think it'll > > fall on their heads. It's not worth the trouble. > Finally, some decent reasons. Especially that first one. But roll on fusion > so we don't have to worry about what to do with waste. > > > Stephen.. Yes - launch costs are the main problem. You may as well bury it in the Earth's mantle - probably it would be more cost effective to dig a very deep hole. Alternativly bury it in a fault and let it get sucked down. BTW - you mention fusion; what is the current state of fusion power? Has anybody had any success with a reactor ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Cameron (The Master) | "I find it hard to take seriously the opinion of | | cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au | someone who puts a Star Trek: TNG quote in their | | cam@adied.oz.au | .sig" -- Richard J. Rauser | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:46:36 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct08.160420.11034@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >Any colony needs an export, an economic reason for being. Agreed. At least you're a step ahead of the folks at FLO, who think their access to government pork is endless. >Luna One's main export would be power, generated by solar cells and beamed >back to LEO or earth via microwaves. As pointed out previously, this would cost $500 billion _plus_ the operational mines, chemical plants, and solar cell factories. The entire mine-to-cell cycle on Earth includes millions of tons of a equipment, and uses several tons of volatiles for every kg of solar cell produced. In contrast the biggest commercial investments tend to be in the $1 billion (comsats) to $15 billion (English Channel tunnel, a private effort) range. The volatile extraction project comes in at $10 billion. >Secondary exports would be refined metals >and glasses (to build the Szabo Astro/Comet Mining fleet and something at L-5 >:), delivered by mass driver. We only need about 20 tons of volatile-processing equipment for the first set of missions. Not much of a market, sorry. After that we'll likely be getting metal regolith from near-earth-asteroids, which require only low-power ice rockets to get to and have concentrations of metal regolith over 10 times that on on the moon. We'll be happy to sell you volatiles and organics, assuming you get funded. We'll also have metal on sale far cheaper than you can make it. >It would be self-sufficient in oxygen, metals production, No way. This requires huge tonnage of factory which you can't afford, and even if you could the factories need ongoing inputs of volatiles and spare parts. Please, study your industrial processes before you make such sweeping claims. >It would probably be able to produce some electronics components on site >(assuming Intel or Hitachi isn't too adverse to licensing their designs). How are you going to get the millions of tons of fab equipment to the moon? >Water? A bit tougher. Most of water's mass is oxygen, difficult to extract but at least available on the moon. But hydrogen makes up the largest volume of water (check out the STS tanks, close to stochiometric). The hydrogen has to be brought up in these huge tanks from earth. (The suggestion that we scrounge for solar wind particles has to be the epitomy of desparate acts :-) Hydrogen also leaks out after a few days so ya better make the water fast. >I suppose we'll have to hire Szabo Astro/Comet Mining to deliver water, or >build our own ships (Known as MGF Mining, for arguements sake). If you can swindle that $500 billion out of some mark, we'll be happy to have you as a customer. :-) -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat //////// Breathe Free: vote Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 92 15:30:52 GMT From: Jim Bowery Subject: Military Funding Newsgroups: sci.space Audit: sci.space,JBowery,2 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: > >ICBM's. So the military _does_ R&D, sometimes necessary R&D, but not >all military R&D, and especially not all military spending, is actually >necessary. So we should save the dough, let someone else develop it, >on their bill. The military generally does a good job in areas of imminent danger, such as ICBMs and remote sensing. That's where the real incentives exist for the military. In other areas, such as civilian agencies like NASA and DoE and the less critical military areas, the incentives are primarily political -- although good traditions can ameleorate the politics somewhat. Astronomy is a case in point with NASA -- although as I warned in this newsgroup just prior to the launch of Hubble, Astronomers were in for a rude awakening due to a departure from those traditions and an adoption of NASA's culture. Hopefully the privately funded Keck Telescope will help astronomy recover some of the integrity it lost with NASA's culture. The military generally has good traditions of discipline that keep it from getting as far out of hand as civilian government technology agencies -- even when operating in noncritical military areas. The best that can be said for such noncritical military expenditures is that they don't produce bureaucracies with incentives to attack technical progress the way spending on civilian government technology does. Yesterday I was talking to the ONR guy who pushed through funding for the laser gyro. He told me about his efforts to upgrade the power plants for the surface fleet to use commercial jet turbines due to their low maintanence load (>100man year savings per). The Navy technology guys just had to spend tens of millions trying to develop special purpose turbines because of some specious technical arguments that made those special turbines sound like more advanced technology. Eventually, they figured out that what they really wanted was powerful and reliable power with low operating costs including maintanence. They finally junked the technology program and just went with DC-10 engines. This is a good example of how the noncritical mission people in the military may run around playing with themselves for awhile, but they eventually come around to doing the right thing (ie: procureing commercially available subsystems from US industry) rather than stretching some ridiculous technology program on for decades and billions of dollars. Civilian government technology agencies have no such sense of self-restraint nor do they take kindly to outside competition which might force them to behave themselves. That's why they end up suppressing technology in proportion to their funding levels. -- INTERNET: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 22:13:00 GMT From: Bob Erickson Subject: NASA town meetings Newsgroups: sci.space The following blurb was pointed out to me from a recent Aerospace Daily: NASA HAS selected six cities around the U.S., including Hartford, CT, for town meetings in which individuals and businesses can offer their views on the future direction of the nations civil space and aeronautics programs. Since I'm pro-space and in the Hartford area, I'd like to go and put in my $.02. Can anyone tell me what I need to do in order to attend? Useful info includes: date/time/place, how to register (if necessary), who to contact. Please respond by email. I subscribe but don't always catch all articles before they get bagged by the system. I'll post the info if I get any and anyones' interested. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bob Erickson #include ree@utrc.utc.com United Technologies Research Center ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 92 11:49:17 GMT From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM Subject: Re : Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space In "Phil G. Fraering" writes: >\>A glance at American Men and Women of Science shows Carl Sagan with: >/>AB - 1954, BS - 1955, MS - 1956, PhD - 1960 (Astron,Astrophys) >\>all granted by the University of Chicago. >/Doesn't he also have a medical degree from Stanford? >I don't think so, but I think there's a degree from Cornell >missing somewhere in there. Seems that I owe the gentleman an apology then. He's obviously been the victim of some _very_ unkind gossip. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ** Of course I don't speak for IBM ** Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk voice/fax: 44-794-516038 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 92 23:12:05 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: Telepresence Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9210070147.AA09594@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) wrote: > The simulator displays a phantom > image of the robot superimposed on the delayed "real" monitoring image of > the robot. The phantom responds to control signals immediately -- that is, > without transmission delay. Its motion predicts that of the real robot. > After the transmission delay, the real image of the robot follows the motion > of the phantom image. This sounds like it may be a bit easier to do then what I had proposed. I'll look up the article... We've heard of similar approaches from the Canadians while working the displays for operation of the mobile servicing center and the SSF arm.... They wanted to do something like this, but the SW onboard could not provide the animation capabilities.... Andy Cohen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 10:44:59 -0500 From: SERGEI GENNEDIEVICH KRIVOSHEEV Subject: the development and change of the soft-and-hardwsre programms for electronic computers and microcontrollers. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.research,sci.physics,sci.med,sci.engr.chem,sci.chem,sci.astro A private veture "BITSI" is looking for the orderers to underline a treaty withsc group of scientists who can solve the following problems handling electronic computers. 1 Complex surface manipulation on numerical control machines.Mathema- tics aspects. 2 Package development for solving the problems of stamping the metal parts. 3 Data base creation for microcomputers . The development of learning programmes on foreign languages(english,italian,german,polish,rus- sian for foreigners).Automatic control system problems-contents di- rectories et.c.) and problems dealing with the mathphysics usage and numerical optimization methods. 4 Numerical decision of control systems that describe complex physi- cal models, the systems of leanear algebra controls,integrated and integroderivative equations in partial derivatives,integral calcu- lation. The development of interactive programmes of the geophysi- cal research interpretation. 5 Calculation of response mechanisms and structure of molecular sys- tem with the help of quantum chemistry methods CNDO/2, MINDO/3,MNDO. 6 The development and change of the soft-and-hardware programmes for the electronic computers and microcontrollers,interactive systems in economics andbusiness. Data base distribution on the basis of networks, microcomputers and network software.Control system deve- lopment and real time processing. 7 Intellectual schedule creation in threedimentional space. Robot dynamics and kinetics. 8 a) Nonexplosional pyroxid(lurilpyroxid) initiators. Development Technology. Manufacturing yield.1 ton -5-7,000 dollars. b) Different medicines on available prices. 9 The quantum electronics laboratory is looking for the partner ti organize a joint venture. The laboratory offers an uptodate medical laser "Yataghan - 1" for curing eye diseases and laser pulses energy measurers, power lasers with electronic control. 10 Production association "Rubin", on the base of which the biggest mirror for selenchur's observatory, was manufactured, offeres its service on the manufacturing massive optical details. P/A "Rubin" - is a unic technology, that allows to manufacture precision mirrors, portholes and plates - high productive auto- mation equipment, allowing to manufacture massive optical details on the price, available to any consumer. According to your order P/A "Rubin" manufactures: - any form of surface (shallow, spherical, aspherical) - diametre range 0,5 to 4 - 6 metres. - quality lf surface on the halfsquare's deflection isn't less than 1/10 - 1/50 wave length. as monolithic, so as light optical elements with coefficient's lightness 1.7 - 1.8. P/A "Rubin" garantees: - high quality of manufacturing yield. - opportune fulfillment of joint duties. on the arrangement questions of order may be appeal: ========================================================================= = = = $$$$$$$ $ $ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $ $ = = $ $ $ $ $ $ $ = = $ $ $ $ $ $ $ = = $$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ = = $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ = = $$$$$$$ $ $ $ $$$$$$$ $ $ = ========================================================= = 403300 , . = = .2 65, "" = = : 84463 - 3-54-07, 3-57-92 = = fax: 84463 - 3-53-87 = =============================================== ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 92 02:42:59 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Transportation on the Moon. Newsgroups: sci.space In article rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes: >My God, as far as we know the Moon's as dry as a bone, and we're talking >about mining ice on it! Even if there IS ice, how do we know there's >going to be enough to support whatever operation is proposed? If you know there's no ice at the lunar poles, you are one up on the entire lunar-science community. It's distinctly possible; see any good technical discussion of lunar resources. Arguments have been advanced both pro and con, but the general consensus is that nothing short of a suitable remote-sensing mission will settle the question. Why do you think flying a gamma-ray spectrometer in low lunar orbit rates such a high priority from almost everyone interested in lunar exploration? (How would the ice get there? It's vapor from comet impacts on the Moon, frozen out in the bottoms of permanently-shadowed polar craters and then buried by impact debris. There are some ifs and maybes, but the basic scenario is plausible.) As for whether there's enough to support the kind of operation proposed, he said quite explicitly that this was handed to them as an assumption, not as something they were charged with investigating. >My guess is that whatever ice there was at the Lunar poles has >been blasted to Kingdom Come. Stop guessing and start reading some of the technical literature on the subject. Yes, there *are* people who claim that frozen cometary volatiles wouldn't persist. But not everyone who has studied the matter agrees. -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 23:02:51 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: what use is Freedom? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct7.031717.19507@den.mmc.com>, whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) wrote: > OK, I do have some questions, > 1. How come the interior appointments create the same impact on the senses > as my new Kenmore fridge? I mean, were's the softness? Any wood grain? > > 2. Any plans for one in polar orbit? (I'm at Vandenberg, so there 'may be' > some self interests in this question.) > > 3. What happened to the large service bays visible on the early models? > > 4. Can I too see or experience the mockups? How about my kids. > > 5. How visible will this thing be from the ground? > > 6. How big can it get, when the currently planned size is too crowded? > > 7. What CAD software package(s) is used for design? answer to 1.... Good question....I've asked it myself... Just imagine how much more it would cost with flight qualified wood grain panels?!.... Actually the colors and the offset lighting used won't be all that bad..... 2...no plans at all for polar orbit....polar orbits are VERY expensive ....just imagine the resources needed for putting all that mass into such an extreme orbit... unless of course the components could be lifted off from a different part of the globe.....which they can't at this time. Pad 39 is an extremely expensive facility.... Few realize that it is one of the most valuable resources we have. I hear the Russian launch facility can do polar...I really don't know tho... They were going to put up a polar flyer...that was work package 3 way back in the beginning of this technical soap opera. 3. That was pure PR and science fiction.... they would have interfered with research and antenna clearance 4. Sure.....email me... 5. I'm told that when the sunlight hits it, the reflection will be extreme.... I've been told that when it goes by at night it will be very hard to miss. I've also heard it will be visible during daylight too.... 6. It's size depends upon lots of factors....as I mentioned in my first post...one of the greatest challenges is to keep something this big stable and on course....since it is low enough to be within reach of the shuttle...there is atmosphere which will hit the truss and panels like a wind on sails.... SSF will be in constant stress attempting to roll, pitch and yaw on it's own....the gyros kick in when needed to dampen the pull and when it goes into reboost the movement is corrected.... the larger it is, the more mass, the more difficult it is to keep it stable... At some point one must balance size against power needs, weight, etc..I liked the phase B design better in this regard...it had the trus in a position perpendicular to the Earth's surface. However, I'm topld that it could not handle all the facilities... I'm not too sure.. I feel ...personnally... that the next challenge should be a VERY high orbit capable shuttle....i.e., geosynchronous.... then we can build a real space station... 7. We use Unigraphics... the CAD package developed by McDonnell Douglas and which was sold off to EDS...(GM).. LETS KEEP THE THREAD GOING! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:51:43 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: what use is Freedom? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct7.031717.19507@den.mmc.com> whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) writes: >1. How come the interior appointments create the same impact on the senses > as my new Kenmore fridge? I mean, were's the softness? Any wood grain? NASA and their contractors have no style? No, seriously, that kind of detail can be good or bad: The guy who has to live there might _hate_ wood furnature (or whatever other nice detail was added). The idea is to make something the astronaut could live with, without knowing anything about the astronaut's tastes or preferences. That means bland is the solution... >2. Any plans for one in polar orbit? (I'm at Vandenberg, so there 'may be' > some self interests in this question.) Not any manned facillities. The Europeans have been playing with the idea of an unmanned platform in a polar orbit, but this looks unlikely at this point. >3. What happened to the large service bays visible on the early models? Gone. They never made a final design. If the post-PMC budgets exist at all, they might be added. >5. How visible will this thing be from the ground? Very, in fact is should be visable as more than a point (e.g. as a I--I shape.) But it will be close to the horizon in most of the United States. >6. How big can it get, when the currently planned size is too crowded? The current design will house 4 at PMC and 8 at EMCC (which isn't funded at the moment.) There is space for further expansion, but no plans or money for this. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 305 ------------------------------