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 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 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 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 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.