HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 22 Dec 1992 17:47:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec22.160212.3136@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>Yes, that's right.  The problem is that when space is actually
>compared with more mundane ways of creating wealth on earth, it
>doesn't look all that good.  Sure, there are some niches, like
>communications (soon to face strong competition from fiber optics) and
>position location.  But schemes for energy or material mined in space
>are just too expensive, speculative, poorly justified and long term
>for an investor to take seriously.

Agreed.  Mining space doesn't look all that attractive, unless we
find something useful out there that just doesn't form right under
terrestrial conditions, or unless we can harvest large quantities
cheaply once we're there (e.g. if we could send asteroids into earth
orbit using solar energy and materials within the asteroid, such as
sequestered volatiles, to provide the delta-V.  I have no idea whether
that would be practical or even possible, but I'll toss it out
to float or sink as it will).

>More generally, raw materials costs are a rather small and shrinking
>fraction of GNP.  Focusing on them is to ignore the real driver of
>competitive advantage, productivity.  We don't make better and cheaper
>cars or computers by cramming more steel and coal into the factory; we
>do it by being smarter in how we design and manufacture them.
                ^^^^^^^
Yes, this is the real key.  The primary payback of the space program in
the 60's was the knowledge we developed simply to answer the challenge.
We developed breakthrough technologies in electronics, medicine and medical
instrumentation, metallurgy, plastics, ceramics, nutritional science,
computer design, and many other fields.

Other ambitious challenges could conceivably yield similar results, but
it's difficult to imagine anything else of a similar scale that would
seize the enthusiasm and imagination of John Q. Taxpayer in quite
the same way.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: pennell@nautile.oe.fau.edu (Mike Pennell)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Advanced Marine Systems Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:41:45 GMT

1/3/1993


In response to Justification for the Space Program,

     The Space Program has all the justification it needs in light of
the amount of jobs which have gone out of the U.S. in other
industries.  LET'S FACE IT, the Aerospace industry is one the last
industries we have which is done better here than anywhere else. 
LET'S KEEP IT HERE. SPEN DA MONEY.

      MIKE
 
      Mike Pennell          e-Mail:Pennell@nautile.oe.fau.edu
      Aerospace Engineer
      No Job/No Where/No More
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:07:16 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: sci
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <BznFpx.93v.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John  
Roberts) writes:
> How much does uranium sufficiently enriched for use in commercial  
reactors
> cost? (For that matter, how much does U235-depleted uranium cost?)

I'd think it should be free to anyone wanting to haul it away
(though the governement probably doesn't treat it that
way).  If you drive by any of the three government gaseous
diffusion plants, you'll see large cylinder after large cylinder of
depleted uranium piled up.  Most of this stuff is just a storage
problem for the plants. You'd think that if someone was actually
going to use it to generate electricity, they'd be willing to
just give it away.



--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:49:01 GMT

Regarding using nitrogen to pressurize molten aluminum

> Henry Spencer writes:
>
> There's no significant amount of nitrogen on the Moon unless there are
> frozen polar volatiles.  You can recover a very little bit from the
> regolith, if you're willing to process a lot of regolith.
>
> A note of caution:  you're assuming that nitrogen is an inert gas.  This
> isn't necessarily true when hot metals are involved.  I'm not sure about
> aluminum, but I know titanium will burn fiercely in nitrogen (in fact,
> the ash from titanium burning in air is about 80% titanium nitride).
> Without an ignition source, the combination might be stable enough.



        Molten aluminum is stable enough in air which is 80% nitrogen.
However, there may be some formation of protective oxide layers, and the
pressures involved are nowhere near the pressures needed for rockets.
Anyway, the point is probably moot if the pressurizing gas has to be imported
from the earth - in this case helium would have a fraction of the mass and be
a truly inert gas for use in pressurization.

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What was NASA thinking?
Date: 2 Jan 1993 16:54 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec31.172110.10616@cs.ucf.edu>, clarke@next1.acme.ucf.edu () writes...
>9Wanting to refresh my somewhat rusty remembrance of things rocket,
>
[stuff deleted]

>Now, I have been led to believe that the SSME is a large
>advance over previous engines. The above seems to imply
>that with a little work the 6 J-2s could have powered
>the shuttle quite nicely.  Perhaps a 6:1 mixture would have
>given it the same Isp as SSME - the J-2 thrust and thrust/weight
>would have then been 246,000 lbs and 71.5.
> 

>Now, the F-1 does not replace an SRB one for one, but its
>no too far off.  Given its good record maybe the F-1 could
>have been rerated to 135% throttle to equal the SRB.
>

The F1A Engine has been qualified to a flight thrust of 1.75 million lbs. On
the test stand at NASA Marshall Space Flight center the original F1's were
fired to 110% of rated thrust to establish emergency margins (1.65 million lbs).
It is a heck of an engine.

>Hence the question in the title of my post:  What was NASA
>thinking about?  Apparently the Saturn engines could have
>been used to build the shuttle vehicle.  Why weren't they?
> 
>A shuttle with 5 or 6 J-2s using 2 uprated F-1s in the recoverable
>boosters would have taken advantage of a history of literally
>dozens of successful flight firings.  Plus there would
>have been a much wider range of abort modes.
> 
>Happy new year.  Let's hope for more rational future designs

Tom what you are describing IS the original shuttle idea, except that they
wanted to reduce the number of engines and realize "cost savings and airline
type reservicing of the engines". Sound familiar? The original Shuttle would
have basicially been the upper stages of a flyback modification of the Saturn
V first stage. The shuttle with its high ISP LOX/H2 engines would have been
the upper stage. This was the plan before the congressional budget office
and the Office of Budget and Managment (Caspar Weinburger) got ahold of the
shuttle budget.  In order to lower the costs of developemnt to the mandated
development budget, the operational costs of the shuttle were sacrificed. 
Wales Larrison posted a wonderful summary of the idiocy that ended up with the
politicans designing the shuttle instead of the rocket scientists.  Most of
the problems that Allen so crys about are the result of that ill considered
budget process.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:30:01 GMT

> Retarding SSTO, Edward V. Wright writes:
>
> Advances in technology, perhaps, but hardly recent advances.  The old
> Saturn S-IVB stage could've been turned into a SSTO launcher, with a
> payload the size of a Gemini spacecraft.  The "unattainable mass ratio"
> is nothing more than an aerospace legend.
>


        This somewhat confuses the issue, in that it tends to imply that the
technology necessary to build a DC-1 was available a generation ago.  The
S-IVB derivative would be a ***non-reusable*** SSTO, which is a different
animal than a ***reusable*** SSTO.   In order to recover your hypothetical
S-IVB vehicle, you will have to add equipment for recovery and landing,
including a retrofire system, heat shielding, parachutes (or the fuel and
throttable engines for a powered descent), landing gear (or waterproofing of
all systems), etc.  The extra mass will kill your payload.

        What is really hard is not making an SSTO, but making a "RRSSTO" or
Recoverable Reusable Single Stage to Orbit which has enough payload to
justify its costs (however accounted for).




--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:38:17 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <72597@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec30.205940.28699@iti.org>
  <30DEC199217112254@author.gsfc.nasa.gov>

>>Doing that would cost more then they are worth. It would be cheaper to
>>build new ones and launch them commercially.
>>
>Can you show that was also true for SMM?  Part of the MMS on UARS is from SMM,
>having been brought back after a successfull mission, after earlier being
>repaired in orbit.  SMM isn't planning to reuse itself, and neither UARS nor
>GRO may be either, but there has already been cost savings on UARS due to the
>return of SMM.  Only the shuttle (product of politics more than NASA's
>technical or mangement expertise IMHO) could repair SMM, and only the shuttle
>could bring it back.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Koehler

   Did I miss something here? SMM is the Solar Maximum Mission, correct?
   It was not returned to earth, only repaired in orbit. It burned up
   in 1990, I think.
   
   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:18:14 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:21:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.160648.14156@mr.med.ge.com> Mark Benson,
benson@gemed writes:
>    We now return to the discussion of the Nirvana of SSTO vs. the hell
of STS.
>    (I like 'em both - but zealots can't admit anyone elses viewpoint has
>    value.)

I can and I am a zealot.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:40:49 GMT


The idea of a 2 stage DC configuration seems technically sound, but how
would it be compatible with the launch facilities designed around the
intended DC-vehicle (single stage)?

Could the service gantries and launch pads be designed to accomodate
different spacecraft configurations?  I know that the launch pads in use today
are built around the rockets launched from them (i.e. Pads 39 A and B can only
be used for the shuttle).

One possible use for a two-stage DC configuration might be a lunar flight
without having to re-fuel in LEO.


Unless I'm way of the mark again on this one.


Simon

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:17:02 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <neff.14.725817375@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu> neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff) writes:

>I recall an estimate of 50 flights by a NASA spokesman. 

The politically (but not necessarily technically) correct line
is now that "the Shuttle orbiters will last for longer than their 
original 100-mission design life."
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Aurora
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:54:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bzo1Fv.MD0.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In answer to John Roberts (Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:27:14 EST):

>I suspect the misunderstanding is due to one of those words that's
>nearly the same in two languages, but which has slightly different
>connotation. Doesn't the French verb "chasser" mean "to hunt"?

Yes, "chasser" means "to hunt", and it is very agressive. What we
call an "avion de chasse" is what you call a "fighter". According
to the dictionary, "to chase" seems indeed a little less agressive,
and may be translated by "chasser" but also by "poursuivre" (= "to
pursue"), so there is some ambiguity.
However, a F-16 is a fighter, and I still find a little disturbing
that US fighters chase US "deep black" planes.

J. Pharabod
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: NASA Get Away Specials 
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:01:13 GMT

There have been some discussions about the NASA GAS program in recent
weeks.  I thought the following short note from Optics and Photonics
News might be of interest.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         NASA "Get Away Specials"

...
 
Since the first "Get Away Special" payload flew on the Space Shuttle Columbia
a decade ago, 87 payloads have flown on 18 missions, representing customers
from industry, educational institutions, domestic and foreign governments,
and individuals.
 
Payload costs range from $8000 for a payload weighing 27.22 kg with a 
volume of 0.071 m^3 to $27,000 for a 90.72 kg [payload] with a volume
of 0.142 m^3.  Charges for U.S. educational institutions range from $3000
to $10,000.
 
To receive general information on the Get Away Special program or to make
a reservation, contact Robert Tucker, Office of Space Flight, 202/453-2347.
For programmatic or technical questions, contact Lowell Primm, GAS Program
Manager, Office of Space Flight, 202/453-1922.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca 
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: bjacobs@chopin.udel.edu (William J Jacobs)
Subject: Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 01:19:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.193342.29953@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu (J. Furr) writes:
>: 
>: I post this whole mess to sci.space and say "help" because it seems that
>: one side in a.f.u. is arguing as follows: _all_ asteroids occur between
>: the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.  Therefore Neptune, Pluto, etc. could not
>: possibly have captured asteroids because asteroids don't go out that far.
>
>Not quite. My definition of asteriod is: any body that orginated in the
>"asteriod belt" (between Mars and Jupiter). I have made no claim as to  
>where they can orbit. Jupiter is large enough to cause significant perturbation
>to their orbits.
>
>However, it is a long way from Jupiter to Neptune. I am waiting for someone
>to post a reference that states that there are asteriods (by my definition)
>that orbit that far out.
>
>Bill

O.K., here's a reference for you.  From "A photometric study of (2060) Chiron
and its coma" by R.M. West published in Astronomy and Astrophysics vol. 241
pg. 635.  R. M. West says, "(Chiron) is the most distant minor planet known
at present; the orbital eccentricity is moderately high (e=0.38) and with a
semi-major axis of 13.7 AU, the peri- and aphelia of (2060) Chiron are near
the mean orbital distances of Saturn and Uranus, respectively."

So, as of July 6, 1991, the answer to your question is "no, there aren't
any asteroids that far out".  That really isn't conclusive as we really don't
have the right technology at present to look for them.  We need a larger 
Infrared telescope, or maybe a Hubble that isn't all bollixed up.  It seems
to me that there are some asteroids from the belt out there, probably about
the same amount that are found amongst the inner planets (which means not
very many), in a great deal more volume.

Bill Jacobs
Astronomer at large
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Date: 29 Dec 1992 22:55:38 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
>taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA
>did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what
>the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal. NASA's prime mission 
>is R&D. The customer wanted an operational vehicle, and NASA contracted 
>to have them built. NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business.
>The Orbiters only cost the bent metal cost, administrative overhead, 
>and contractor profit, Rockwell says that's $1.5 billion per each.



Unfortunately, gary the 30 billion spent on the shuttle developement program
wasnt R&D money,  it was mostly DDTE money, a lsightly different concept
from the accounting world.  

THe X-15  was an R&D program.  the X-24  was a R&D program.
a major percentage of the money spent on the shuttle was not on breaking
into new areas, (Science)  but on doing design studies (Engineering)
and building facilities (Manufacturing).  

Now while there were R&D portiions of the shuttle program,  tiles developement
engine developement,  the major costs were in paying rockwell toset up
a factory and build the damn things.   now if we had gone and built
30-50 of the things,  then that cost would be well amortized,  but as
a small program,  these production costs  dominated the vehicle costs.

Oh well.  just my 0.02.
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Manhattan DISTRICT (not Pr......)
Date: 27 Dec 1992 18:24:53 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec26.100921.7529@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
>Actually, I thought it was the Manhatten Engineering District.  I don't



Um,  i heard in Los ALamos it was called United States Engineering District.
IT caused some trouble for the scientists, cuz when they were moved their
they were given housing already furnished.  all the furniture was stamped
"U.S.E.D."  Their wives were a little unhappy with the idea of used furniture
bedding etc.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jtk@s1.gov (Jordin Kare)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:18:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.134016.13037@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Another source of information is the External Tank Study published
>by the Space Studies Institute. Cutting up ETs for their aluminum
>was listed as an option. Impulse of such an engine would be in the
>330 second range. Very viable as a Lunar based fuel source.

It is my understanding that there are serious technical difficulties in
making a workable aluminum/oxygen rocket.  While I'm by no means an
expert, I believe the problems include:

Injection:  How do you transport Al?  How do you get it to mix with the O2?
	Premixing them into a slurry (i.e., using the LOX to transport the
aluminum) is possible, but
a stochiometric slurry of Al powder in LOX is apparently a very
unstable system with a tendency to detonate.  It is my recollection that
Wickman Co's approach is to stabilize such a slurry with (proprietary) 
additives.  Even if you transport the Al separately (say, with a flow of
hydrogen gas) it's not clear that you can achieve stable combustion; things
like Al particle size are probably very critical.

Cooling:  The combustion temperature of Al and O2 is very high (or they 
wouldn't give even ~300 s Isp).  Conventional engines are regeneratively cooled
by the fuel.  Regenerative cooling with O2 is difficult -- O2 tends to 
oxidize engine parts :-(.  

Exhaust flow properties:  AlO2 is both refractory and abrasive.  
I don't know (and I wouldn't be surprised if no one knew) just what the
condensation properties of AlO2 would be in a rocket exhaust, but it 
seems likely that the exhaust will chew up most throat and nozzle materials
and may not provide very efficient thrust.

None of this makes an Al-O rocket impossible, just difficult -- enough so
that there are probably easier ways of getting mass off the moon.

	Jordin Kare
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter
Followup-To: sci.astro 
Summary: help on nomenclature
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 18:56:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.193205.1@stsci.edu> gawne@stsci.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.193342.29953@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, 
>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
> 
>> My definition of asteriod is: any body that orginated in the
>> "asteriod belt" (between Mars and Jupiter). etc etc

	Help! It would be useful to learn what are the "official" uses
of the words according the IAU (and IUGG?). I have a hard enough time helping
students try to keep meteor, meteorite, and meteoroid straight when
there seems to be general disagreement on the distinctions between the
meaning of the words asteroids, comets and, yes, planets. I posted
this question recently in sci.astro but so far no one has come to the
rescue. 

	Is anyone willing to demote Pluto/Charon to asteroid status,
change Chiron from "asteroid" to comet, buck public sentiment to
avoid naming a body orbiting mostly a little beyond Pluto "Planet X", or
think about the use of the term "worlds" that some seem to favor for
large bodies even if not orbiting the Sun?



 


	

Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu   
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain