test test

The $1B Space Station
=====================

Current estimates of the cost of the ISS are over $100 Billion, at this
cost it is difficult to imagine any scientific breakthroughs which would
make the cost justified. A $1B Space Station, though still expensive
would provide better bang per buck as long as its capability is more than
1% of ISS.

This is an outline of how I think man tended experiments can be done more
cheaply, and in many cases better than either ISS or the Space Shuttle
allow.

Use an expendable launcher to place approx 20 tonnes of space station into
orbit. The space station would have supplies for 3 men for three months. It
would have a lifetime in orbit of three years, having no capability of
reboosting to a higher orbit, equipment upgrade or resupply. It is fully
integrated on the ground with only the extension of solar pannel wings (and
cooling system?) needed to configure the system in orbit.

The configuration is a stepped cylinder approx 10m long and 4m in diameter at
its widest point. The wider part of the cylinder has living accomodation for
3 men, simple life support, equipment racks, storage space, etc. The other
part has room for external equipment round a narrow presurised tube. There
would be a docking port at the wider end, and an optional docking port at
the other end replacing an optical glass port.

In the baseline mission, three crews (each spending a month in orbit) of
three men, would visit the station setting up equipment, making repairs,
removing samples, making observations, etc. When not occupied the station
would provide vibration conditions at least an order of magnitude better
than ISS and a "sweet spot" of nearly zero-g of aprox the same size. The
vacuum round the station would be much better than ISS and a wake shield
could be used to get very good conditions.

At the end of the three year mission the station is deorbited, the equipment
in it will be 5 years behind the state-of-the-art, much of it would require
replacing anyway.

Although such a space station could be launched and operated for well under
$1B, development and manufacturing costs would be high in the order of several
$ billion. The key to keeping total costs per mission is the amortize the
development cost over many missions and use a production line to produce
lots of space stations. Lets see what NASA’s current space station budget
would buy us, assuming $2B ISS costs and $2B for shuttle flights supporting
ISS then we could buy 4 space stations a year and have 12 stations in orbit
at any one time, crew would be launched once per month on average giving a
three man continuous presence in space.

At first sight these figures don’t look good when compared to ISS.

                $1B SS              ISS

mass            12×20 tonne         400 tonne
crew            3                   6
stay time       1 month             indefinite stays

However I haven’t included the international dimension yet, looked at
capabilities or presented other configurations.  Europe, Japan and Russia
could each afford a $1B SS a year (although Russia might have to pay in kind).
Several other nations; China, India, Canada, Korea and Brazil included could
afford a one off space station if it only cost $1B, Totaling these up might
come to 8 $1B SS per year.

Next the capabilities of the station are quite flexible, external telescopes
would not be needed on a life sciences mission and the mass saved could be
used for extra supplies. The stations can be orientated either way allowing
telescopes to look at the earth or the stars. Internal and external equipment
can be varied on a per station basis. Both internal and external robot arms
can be used and tele-operation used to run them even when the station is
unmanned.

Two stations can be connected end to end creating a bigger station. Only
docking takes place, there need be no electrical or other systems connection
between the two, if the airlock between them remains normally closed there
would be very little life support coupling. Note there is no expensive on
orbit construction, just proven technology dockings. Obviously several
stations could be connected in the same way, leading to very large structures
and a permamently manned station. Nodes between the station elements could
lead to a more flexible structure.

A major systems failure or accident would only affect one station, the lessons
learned from the investigation would be incorporated into future stations,
on the ISS it could stop the entire program and the ISS design would be
impossible to change.

Moreover, there is room for continual improvement of systems and equipment.
Lets assume that stations are made in blocks of 20 or so, with similar
basic equipment but different experiments and instruments. Then every two
and a half years an oportunity arises to improve the equipment or introduce
changes into the structural design. This allows the first stations to be
designed quickly and cheaply while later ones are optimised for structural
mass, research capability and flexibility. The only things which need stay
the same are equipment practice and docking mechanism.

                           $1B SS              ISS

mass                       24×20 tonne         400 tonne
crew                       6                   6
stay time                  >1 month            indefinite stays
wake shield                up to 24            none
track repeat time          hours               days
zero-g sweet spot          24                  1
orbital inclination        several             1
eggs                                           all in one basket
cost over 10 year life     $80 Billion         $100 Billion

launch cost                                                  $100M
station build and baseline fittings                          $50M
development                                                  $200M
configuration (departures from baseline mission)             $50M
crew launch                                                  3 x $120M
crew training and operations                                 $50M
insurance                                                    $90M
profit                                                       $100M

total                                                        $1B

marginal cost (excluding developement and configuration,     $700M
               and assuming economies of scale)

I’ve assumed that a commercial operator is used, which buys launch services
from several companies and which uses a single prime contractor for station
development and manufacture. Assuming that development of the initial low
capability station takes under 3 years and $2B breakeven should come after
about 5 years, thereafter $1.6B would be spent on continuous improvement each
year, at 8 stations per year.

There are several synergies with other space systems. The launch rate is quite
high, 8 Ariane V class and 24 Soyuz class launches per year, which is high
enough to bring down the per launch cost due to economies of scale. When
SSTO RLV become available station costs plumet, down to under $500M with
a marginal cost of something like $150M, at these sort of prices large
companies and small countries can afford them, enlarging the potential market.
The $1B SS approach is able to take advantage of the increases in mass to LEO
which come over time within a launcher family.

–
Mike Atkinson  M…@ladyshot.demon.co.uk

The following letter from the American Physical Society may be of
interest to readers of this group.  It’s not mentioned in this letter,
but the web sites
http://www.kornet.nm.kr/whitehouse/US-Congress-Phone-Fax-list and
http://www.ite.org/house.htm contain information on how to contact
congress.

From:           D. Allan Bromley, APS President
Re:             Science Funding

Over the past few years, federal budgets have not adequately
reflected science as a critical national investment.  At a time
when the U.S.  economy has become increasingly dependent on
technological innovation, the federal commitment to science has
been declining.  As a percentage of the GDP, it is now less than
half of what it was 35 years ago.  Moreover, the total R&D investment,
public plus private, as a percentage of GDP is nearing a 40-year low.
The scientific community must act to reverse this trend.

On March 4th, the presidents of 23 professional societies united to
clearly state the value of science to the nation.  In their *Joint
Statement on Scientific Research,* they called on the federal
government to restore its commitment to science and provide increases
for FY 1998 in the range of 7%.  Since then, additional organization
leaders have endorsed the statement, bringing the total number to 45
and increasing the representation to more than 1.5 million scientists,
mathematicians and engineers.  The statement has attracted considerable
attention in Congress.

We are now at a point in budget deliberations when individuals
— constituents of key Members of Congress — need to be heard.

Representative Louis Stokes is on the Appropriations Committee.
As a constituent, you are in a unique position to make the case
for science.  I urge you to take a few moments to make contact.

The key staff member for Representative Louis Stokes is
Mark Lindsay, and can be reached by phone at (202) 225-7032.
If you prefer a letter, it should be sent to:

The Honorable Louis Stokes
2365 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Attn: Mark Lindsay
A copy can be FAXed to (202) 225-1339.

Attached is a copy of the  *Joint Statement on Scientific Research.*
You can refer to it when you contact the congressional office.  You
may also want to bring up other key points:

> You are a constituent.
>  Science is a critical federal investment.  In a recent survey by

the Wall Street Journal (3/6/97), economists identified the dual
mission of education and R&D as the number one priority for the
federal government.  You may want to mention the impact of your own
research, if it is germane.

>  An increase in science funding is achievable and necessary.  The

investment is vital for sustained economic growth and therefore is a
key component in realizing the goal of a balanced budget.  Recognizing
these imperatives, the House Science Committee on April 17th
authorized 5% – 7% increases in the research budgets at DOE, NSF,
NASA, and NIST core program among  others.  In addition,
Rep. George Brown (D-CA) has released a budget plan that achieves
balance in 2002 while increasing science funding by 5% per year.  
Senator Gramm (R-TX) introduced a bill that would double the federal
budget for civilian research over the next ten years.

To have an impact, you should contact the office as soon as possible.
A conversation as short as a minute or two in which you simply state
your concern can make a strong impression.  If you need additional
information or assistance in making contact with the congressional
office, please contact Francis Slakey, Associate Director of Public
Affairs for the American Physical Society, with a return e-mail
message or by phone at (202) 662 – 8700.

- – - – - – - – - – - – -

JOINT STATEMENT ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

As the federal government develops its spending plans for Fiscal Year
1998, we call upon the President and Members of Congress to renew
the nation’s historical commitment to scientific research and education
by providing the requisite funding for the federal agencies charged
with these responsibilities.  Our call is based upon two fundamental
principles that are well accepted by policy makers in both political
parties.

> The federal investment in scientific research is vital to four national

goals: our economic competitiveness, our medical health, our national
security and our quality of life.

>  Scientific disciplines are interdependent; therefore, a comprehensive

approach to science funding provides the greatest opportunity for
reaching these goals.

We strongly believe that for our nation to meet the challenges of the
next century, agencies charged with carrying out scientific research
and education require increases in their respective research budgets
in the range of 7 percent for Fiscal Year 1998.  These agencies include,
among others, the NSF, NIH, DOE, DOD, and NASA.  The increases we call
for strike a balance between the current fiscal pressures and the need
to invest in activities that enable long-term economic growth and
productivity.  Such increases would only partially restore the
inflationary losses that most of these agencies suffered during the last
few years.

Prudent planning argues for strengthening the respective activities of
major research agencies, as already recognized in pending legislation.
To constrain still further federal spending on their scientific programs
would jeopardize the future well-being of our nation.

Endorsed by leaders of:
American Association of Crystal Growth
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists
American Association of Physicists in Medicine
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
The American Institute of Professional Geologists
American Mathematical Society
American Psychological Association
The American Physical Society
American Society of Engineering Education
American Society for Mass Spectrometry
American Vacuum Society
Association for Women in Mathematics
Association for Women in Science
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Council of Scientific Society Presidents
Council on Undergraduate Research
Ecological Society of America
Engineering Deans Council
EPSCoR Foundation
Estuarine Research Federation
Federation of Materials Societies
Geological Society of America
Health Physics Society
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences
The International Society for Optical Engineering
Materials Research Society
Mathematical Association of America
The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society
Optical Society of America
Psychonomic Society
Radiation Research Society
Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Soil Science Society of America
Southeastern Universities Research Association
University Materials Council
______________________
          Geoffrey A. Landis
          Physicist and part-time Science Fiction writer
          http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-6143
(202) 225-5074

Contacts: Rob Mobley (202) 225-2577
Bobby Charles (202) 225-2577

Media Advisory

Ron Howard, Buzz Aldrin to testify before U.S. Congress

WHAT: ³Defining NASA¹s Mission and America¹s Vision for the Future of
Space Exploration² Hearing before the House Subcommittee on National
Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice

WHEN: Friday, May 9, 1997, 8:30 a.m.

WHERE: Smithsonian¹s National Air and Space Museum 6th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW (Enter through doors located on Independence
Avenue)

This hearing, which will be the first congressional hearing ever held at
the Smithsonian¹s Air and Space Museum, will assess NASA¹s long-term
mission and manned space exploration at large.  Witnesses include Ron
Howard, director of the movie ³Apollo 13²; Buzz Aldrin, who was part of
the first team to land on the moon; Walt Cunningham, who flew the first
manned Apollo mission; and Story Musgrave, who has flown six shuttle
missions including the repair of the Hubble telescope and has 30 years in
the astronaut corps/

NOTE TO MEDIA: TV crews that need to set up for remotes in the museum must
contact Kim Riddle, National Air and Space Museum Public Affairs at (202)
357-1552.

Just read in "Finansoviye  Izvestiya"

Eutelsat ordered this stellite in Russia (NPO Prikladnoy Mekhaniki,
they made Gals and Express). The launch is planned for 1999. The cost
is about 110 mln ecu.

Power — 3200Wt, 18 transmitters (90 Wt each). Planned lifetime — 10
years, it will probably be deployed at 36 degrees east latitude. It
will use plasma thrusters for stationkeeping. Launch with Proton. Two
more satellites may be ordered if this one works Ok.

Dr. Steven Greer of CSETI will be interviewed on the Art Bell Radio Show
Coast to Coast FM on Thursday 8th May at 11pm Pacific Time, 2am EDT.

Topics will include a status report on CSETI’s historic Washington
briefing on April 9th to Members of the US Congress about the ET
presence.

For the radio affiliate nearest you got to:

http://www.artbell.com/stations.html

Instructions are also listed on this page under "Audio Page" on how to
listen to the show live through your computer.

Tony Craddock
Web Administrator
CSETI
http://www.cseti.org

In article <5krid4$g7…@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu> wayne…@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Dwayne Allen Day) writes:

[Much snippage]

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

>Now by the mid-80s, there was a NASA scientific advisory group that
>acknowledged that nobody was paying attention to money when drawing up
>their wishlists.  This group concluded that NASA needed a core program
>(things we must have) and an augmented program (things we’ll ask for but
>don’t expect).  It was the first attempt to prioritize–to say that some
>things are more important than others.  But it didn’t work and everyone
>kept humming along until Mars Observer went KAPOW in 1992.  At that point
>there was a very interesting scramble within the agency and among critics
>of the agency (such as the fastercheaperbetter crowd at SDIO) that
>realigned things.  With budgets heading down rapidly and no big
>monstersats like Mars Observer in the forseeable future, things COULD
>change and they actually started to change.
>(And there may have been a bit of a push from within–so many people had
>been waiting so long for Mars data that they were willing to do things
>differently just to get some data instead of waiting another 17 years.)

>I’m leaving out other steps too, since there was a very interesting
>proposal out of Ames in 1990 or so called MESUR, for Mars Environmental
>SURvey.  MESUR was the first program I saw where they actually set both
>total funding and peak funding caps on their own proposal.  So there were
>people within NASA who were starting to think about cost.

>: One typically saw this in looking at NASA’s outyear budget
>: projections.  My vague recollection is that they would call for
>: spending something like THREE TIMES as much a year as NASA was getting
>: (and presumably was likely to continue to get).  And then when they
>: didn’t get the money, NASA would whine about "cuts" and proceed to
>: stretch everything out some more.
>: as it did to fix it.

>Well, NASA as a whole was pretty screwed up by the 1990s.  Remember,
>bureaucracies measure "success" by the size of their budget.  NASA is an
>agency that was actually REWARDED for blowing up a space shuttle.

   I have the strong impression that something very much like the above
scenario has been happening at the NRO, but lagging NASA by perhaps
five years.  There’s an utterly amazing newsbyte in the current AWST
(May 5, 1997, p.19) saying that the NRO is going to award a contract
next year for a new generation of imagery satellites that have to be
small enough to be launched on an Atlas or smaller booster, and be ready
to go by early next decade. This *isn’t* the way Big Black has
traditionally done business.

   One wonders what has happened to the "8X" monstersat.  I suspect that
there’s a good chance that one or two will be built just out of inertia
— it will be interesting to see what gets launched on T-IV Bs over the
next decade.

Ian Robert Walker (I…@newbrain.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: I was hoping some one would spot that, the Lorentz eq’s only apply to
: known mater traveling at or below c. Having no observations for the
: behaviour of particles above c the best we can do is use the sub-c
: Lorentz transforms. However, we must remember that they might be totally
: inapplicable, they are only ‘better’ because they are some thing rather
: than nothing.

I would like someone to derive the eq’s then set it to c or above, and
see what they get.

Jameson Triplett
hey I’m only a sophomore (in high school)

The URL for this is at http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/atomic.htm
In case of difficulty, mirror site is at
http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar/atomic.htm

MARS SHIP 2001
————–

Introduction

     A trip to Mars is one of the most exciting prospects for
     space development at the moment due to the discovery
     of meteorites that appear to have come from Mars
     (established from mineral characteristics) and which
     appear to contain fossilised capsules that may have
     originated from bacteria like life forms (simplest possible
     explanation of evidence so far found).

     We all want to go to Mars but the question is how to get
     there in an equitable manner. We could build massive
     space vehicles, relay stations, habitation modules etc,
     etc,.. but the real problem is the cost of building all this
     hardware.

     The proposal outlined here, could mean that we could
     build a ship that can take us to Mars in a few weeks and
     be ready to do so by the year 2001.

     Conventional technologies have all been looked at and in
     many different ways, will fail to meet the statement made
     above because of technologies that do not exist or have
     yet to be perfected. The proposal outlined here all exist in
     disparate forms and its just a matter of putting it all
     together (with a Herculean effort one should add!) to be
     ready for this trip at the given year.

Construction

     The construction of the Mars Ship 2001 requires a
     number of innovative ideas to be melded together to
     make the complete ship that will take man to Mars and
     bring him back safely in a couple of months.

     Firstly we need a powerful rocket – something that
     generates vast amounts of thrust for very little propellant.

     Secondly we need that same rocket engine to use
     common materials found on Mars as propellant to get
     back.

     Thirdly we need something that will neutralise the
     enormous g forces generated by the powerful rockets so
     that our astronauts are not crushed in the accelerating
     vehicle.

     All this is possible using known technologies!

     The most powerful rocket that has ever been developed
     is an atomic reactor based thruster back in the 1950′s in
     the USA. The thrust generating capabilties of this machine
     is 10 million times more power than chemical rockets.
     The construction of this rocket is very simple as is
     illustrated in figure 1.

                     Figure 1

     The propellant is injected into a chamber beyond which
     lies the simmering hot nuclear fuel rods. The propellant is
     vapourized as it circulates around the exhaust funnel
     before entering the reaction chamber. After the propellant
     is heated up in the reaction chamber, the propellant is
     ejected at high speed producing a large amount of thrust.
     All this has been done before and is known (but
     abandoned) technology. Almost any propellant can be
     used such as water as found on Earth or carbon dioxide
     as found on Mars. (The original experiments were
     performed with hydrogen propellant.)

     The reason for choosing water rather than hydrogen
     becomes apparent later..

     So our first two criteria are satisfied but we also need to
     satisfy the requirement of surviving a high g acceleration.

     We can survive high g if we use a very powerful magnet
     to inertially lock our bodies to the accelerating vehicle.
     The principles are explained in the inertia locking system
     page (http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/inertia.htm).

     The principle is very simple – basically a magnet attracts
     human bodies through an effect called molecular
     magnetism (about 10+ Tesla field strength before the
     effects become apparent).

     A brilliant side effect of this phenomena is that if you were
     held by magnetic attraction in a accelerating space
     vehicle, then every molecule in your body is inertially
     locked to the accelerating vehicle and you will not feel the
     acceleration that you are undergoing!

     Thus if you are at ground level experiencing 1g and you
     accelerate at 10g while at the same time you are attracted
     by this magnet with a force of 10g in the opposite
     direction to your acceleration, then you will only feel the
     force of 1g, the same as normal gravity because the
     magnet neutralises the acceleration – even though you are
     thundering off into space at great acceleration which
     under normal circumstances would crush you
     immediately.

     At 10g+ acceleration you would clear the atmosphere in
     a matter of minutes and be speeding away on a direct
     intercept course to Mars to arrive there in a couple of
     weeks depending on how much fuel mass you are
     carrying.

     Where does the power to create the immense magnetic
     fields come from?.

     Since you are carrying a nuclear power station, its not
     difficult to see where all that power is going to come
     from!

     A few turbine pipes can heat water to a superhot state
     where its fed to a conventional turbine generator to
     generate the electricity for the high power electromagnets.
     The exhaust from the turbine is fed directly into the
     reaction chamber where it is further heated and leaves as
     propellant expelled out of the exhaust nozzle (figure 2).

                     Figure 2

     From figure 2, the living quarters is next door to the
     powerful magnets and the astronauts are expected to
     reside in the magnet’s chamber while they are undergoing
     acceleration.

     The construction of the Mars Ship 2001 itself is not
     undertaken the normal way – its built the fractal way.
     Fractal robotics is used as the principle technology for all
     the tooling and machinery needed to make the
     superstructure of the spacecraft. After the structure has
     been built, the fractal robots wrap a metal skin around all
     the components illustrated in figure 2 and forms the
     rocket proper.

     Using this technique, the rocket is assembled in a matter
     of hours just before departure. Such techniques allow the
     rocket to be assembled in space or on Earth depending
     on our preferences. Each device the ship carries is built
     independently of each other and in a modular manner that
     allows future missions to be planned and executed using
     fractal principles.

     As an example of the benefits of fractal principles for
     space probes, a proposal can be found at
     http://www.robodyne.com/mars2001.

     Its very important that missions are planned in this way
     because fractal robotics allow additional missions to be
     assembled and dispatched at very short notice because
     the construction of the spacecraft proper does not involve
     hundreds of human beings working away at a massive
     rocket structure. They all work at ground level on simple
     modules.

     If new modules are required by the astronauts, or if in
     flight repairs are needed, then a new mission can be
     assembled with just the critical components necessary for
     the mission and dispatched as an automated vehicle to the
     astronauts.

     Since we built the craft in small modules, a great
     additional many space missions can be assembled and
     carried out by ordering copies of the modules from the
     original manufacturers.

     This scheme for space access is a lot simpler than
     re-commissioning a completely new flying machine which
     may take years to specify fully and deliver!

     The advantage of using fractal robotic system is that once
     the vehicle has reached space, if we are no longer using
     propellent, then the machine can reconfigure into an
     elongated spinning structure that keeps the astronaughts
     in mild g conditions. At the very least it prevents objects
     floating around which is dangerous – e.g. a tiny metal
     shard can destroy a whole computer! The radioactive fuel
     rods can be dismantled and kept at the opposite end of
     the spinning vehicle which means that the astronauts are
     much better protected against gamma rays emanating
     from those fuel rods. Also, since we are carrying a
     powerful magnet chamber (magnet is switched off), that
     compartment has high levels of shielding which is an
     appropriate place for the astronauts to sleep in. Its also a
     place to shelter should the astronauts become caught in
     solar flares.

Nuclear Powered Rockets

     The biggest risk we carry with Mars Ship 2001 is the
     radiation and radioactives left behind at launch time and
     during space flight. The advances made in fractal robotics
     and the techniques presented here can more or less
     reduce the radiation hazards to zero.

     Firstly, fractal robots can handle a full blown nuclear
     accident very well – this is the ultimate penalty of failure
     and the technology is outlined in the nuclear section
     (http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/nuclear.htm).
     From this base line we can address a lot of the specific
     problems that will be encountered in building a nuclear
     powered rocket. Conventional technologies cannot begin
     at this base line and therefore are doomed from the
     beginning to pressures that beset nuclear power.

     The first problem we are going to encounter is what to do
     about the nuclear contaminated exaust that we
     generate. There are a number of things that could be
     done to minimise this.

     Firstly we are using water which means that like nuclear
     electric power stations, we are using it in a similar manner
     where we give it a very small amount of radiation
     exposure as they pass over the hot rods in a few
     milliseconds. The principles are not that different to
     nuclear
…

read more »

I would like some definitive answers as to why there is a large
resurgence of anti-nuclear-powered spacecraft.  If I am hideously
under-educated, please let me know, but I have always considered
nuclear space power to be an extremely safe method of producing
energy in space.

Anti-RTG proponents cite the launch as their major concern, and
this, while valid, underestimates the engineers who actually
develop these things.  All of my education has told me that these
systems are shielded and designed so that even if the launch
vehicles do explode during any phase of lift-off, the RTG system
will remain intact and fall, contained, to the bottom of the
sea.

Will somebody please let me know if I am dead wrong?
Or is the public merely undereducated and over-reactive once
again?

-Roy Gladden
(please respond via newgroup -and- email to: sl…@cc.usu.edu)

"Real Men Marvel at the Stars."