Aucbvax.5424
fa.space
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space
Thu Dec 10 03:29:36 1981
SPACE Digest V2 #55
>From OTA@S1-A Thu Dec 10 03:22:21 1981
SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 55
Today's Topics:
Shuttling off the mortal coil
Galileo article
Canadian Governement ups Space Funding
Laser Launch Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 9 Dec 1981 1121-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE AT UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Shuttling off the mortal coil
To: space at MIT-MC
As concerns having 'blown' it by building the Shuttle, I remind
the audience that the Shuttle, although full of innovations and new
hardware, is based in mid-70's space technology, which IS reliable AND
proven (unlike esoteric methods such as laser launching and mass
drivers).
It is obvious that chemical rockets are not going to be
sufficent in the long run for getting places. HOWEVER, that is exactly
what we are stuck with for the time being. Of course, the esoteric
methods could probably be made to work if a gigabuck or two were poured
into them, but there is always the problem of "What if it doesn't work
on the scale we need it to?" With current technology, we KNOW it will
work on the scale involved (up to the scale of the Saturn V).
While undoubtedly politics were involved with the Shuttle
winging its way back to earth, that is ALSO based on known, proven
aerodynamic technology. Also, an aerodynamic return vechile has more
flexibility on landing site selection than the falling-rock
Mercury/Vostok/Gemini/Vokshod/Apollo/Soyuz genre.
Face it, there are LOTS of things that COULD have been done.
But if you were going to attack the problem of reusable (cheap) space
transportation, with ~2 gigabucks of taxpayers money, (and all the
political bullshit attached thereto) would you adopt untried technology
for its base? No one wants their head on a pole because of a wrong
decision, not scientist or engineer or Congressman.
-------
------------------------------
Date: 9 Dec 1981 1452-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC MIT-XX AT>
Subject: Galileo article
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX
Was from this week's AW&ST. Sorry, gang....
-------
------------------------------
Date: 9 Dec 1981 20:05:55-PST
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: Canadian Governement ups Space Funding
The Canadian space program may not be large, but at least it is growing.
The Toronto Globe and Mail this morning said that Canadian Space Program
funding will increase by 38% next year. This means over $100 million more
(1 dollar = 84 cents US) for various programs.
A large amount will go into L-Sat's sollar array, in cooperation with the ESA.
The Minister said that Government support for space development will be
maintained "considerably ahead of the inflation rate".
Details will be given later today on M-Sat, which will be for mobile communication,
providing instant links for vehicles. Potential sales of the system are
expected to be in the billions world-wide. Space radar for tracing weather
is also getting more.
Total Canadian spending on space will now be raised to the $500 million level.
A fair portion of the money will go to Spar Aerospace, the company that
built the space shuttle arm.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Dec 1981 0155-PST
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH AT SU-SCORE>
Subject: Laser Launch Systems
To: space at MIT-MC, info-laser at MIT-AI
In regard to the recent message appearing in the SPACE digest
concerning the possibility of using lasers, stationed on the ground, to
supply the power to launch payloads into earth orbit by heating the
reaction mass in a chamber at the bottom of the "rocket" and using the
expanding gasses to propell the payload.
I have always been interested in these systems as a potentially
good replacement for rocket power. However, I have some technical
questions (which eventually translate to economic questions).
1) What payload capacity are we talking about? This depends
upon the answers to several other questions, but it is an
important bottom line factor. In the short run we want
high capacity in order to reduce assembly costs of
components in orbit.
2) What power levels can the lasers maintain? Remember, those
levels have to be maintained until orbit is acheived. A
series of lasers firing in sequence could be used instead
of a single laser, but that increases capital costs.
3) How many lasers are needed per launch? What is the
turnaround time between launches? What is the cost of
each laser?
4) What is the cost of the energy used per launch (or
more simply, how much energy do you need)?
With reasonable figures for these parameters, some figuring can
be done. Till then we are simply wasting air. Any laser experts
out there?
Jim
-------
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
