danghungithp/text_dataset · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 2.94k
Funny. A bit disturbing. Forging a posting seems somewhat unethical, even
if the subject is as notorious as McElwaine.
Followups should definitely not go to sci.space.
david rickel
[email protected]
I know people hate it when someone says somethings like "there was an article
about that somewhere a while ago" but I'm going to say it anyway. I read an
article on this subject, almost certainly in Space News, and something like
six months ago. If anyone is really interested in the subject I can probably
hunt it down given enough motivation.
Josh Hopkins [email protected]
"Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
seront capable de le realiser"
-Jules Verne
SSF is up for redesign again. Let's do it right this
time! Let's step back and consider the functionality we want:
[1] microgravity/vacuum process research
[2] life sciences research (adaptation to space)
[3] spacecraft maintenence
The old NASA approach, explified by Shuttle and SSF so far, was to
centralize functionality. These projects failed to meet
their targets by a wide margin: the military and commercial users
took most of their payloads off Shuttle after wasting much effort to
tie their payloads to it, and SSF has crumbled into disorganization
and miscommunication. Over $50 billion has been spent on these
two projects with no reduction in launch costs and littel improvement
in commercial space industrialization. Meanwhile, military and commercial
users have come up with a superior strategy for space development: the
constellation.
Firstly, different functions are broken down into different
constellations placed in the optimal orbit for each function:
thus we have the GPS/Navstar constellation in 12-hour orbits,
comsats in Clarke and Molniya orbits, etc. Secondly, the task
is distributed amongst several spacecraft in a constellation,
providing for redundancy and full coverage where needed.
SSF's 3 main functions require quite different environments
and are also prime candidates for constellization.
[1] We have the makings of a microgravity constellation now:
COMET and Mir for long-duration flights, Shuttle/Spacelab for
short-duration flights. The best strategy for this area is
inexpensive, incremental improvement: installation of U.S. facilities
on Mir, Shuttle/Mir linkup, and transition from Shuttle/Spacelab
to a much less expensive SSTO/Spacehab/COMET or SSTO/SIF/COMET.
We might also expand the research program to take advantage of
interesting space environments, eg the high-radiation Van Allen belt
or gas/plasma gradients in comet tails. The COMET system can
be much more easily retrofitted for these tasks, where a
station is too large to affordably launch beyond LEO.
[2] We need to study life sciences not just in microgravity,
but also in lunar and Martian gravities, and in the radiation
environments of deep space instead of the protected shelter
of LEO. This is a very long-term, low-priority project, since
astronauts will have little practical use in the space program
until costs come down orders of magnitude. Furthermore, using
astronauts severely restricts the scope of the investigation,
and the sample size. So I propose LabRatSat, a constellation
tether-bolo satellites that test out various levels of gravity
in super-Van-Allen-Belt orbits that are representative of the
radiation environment encountered on Earth-Moon, Earth-Mars,
Earth-asteroid, etc. trips. The miniaturized life support
machinery might be operated real-time from earth thru a VR
interface. AFter several orbital missions have been flown,
follow-ons can act as LDEFs on the lunar and Martian surface,
testing out the actual environment at low cost before $billions
are spent on astronauts.
[3] By far the largest market for spacecraft servicing is in
Clarke orbit. I propose a fleet of small teleoperated
robots and small test satellites on which ground engineers can
practice their skills. Once in place, robots can pry stuck
solar arrays and antennas, attach solar battery power packs,
inject fuel, etc. Once the fleet is working, it can be
spun off to commercial company(s) who can work with the comsat
companies to develop comsat replaceable module standards.
By applying the successful constellation strategy, and getting
rid of the failed centralized strategy of STS and old SSF, we
have radically improved the capability of the program while
greatly cutting its cost. For a fraction of SSF's pricetag,
we can fix satellites where the satellites are, we can study
life's adaptation to a much large & more representative variety
of space environments, and we can do microgravity and vacuum
research inexpensively and, if needed, in special-purpose
orbits.
N.B., we can apply the constellation strategy to space exploration
as well, greatly cutting its cost and increasing its functionality.
Mars Network and Artemis are two good examples of this; more ambitiously
we can set up a network of native propellant plants on Mars that can be used
to fuel planet-wide rover/ballistic hopper prospecting and
sample return. The descendants of LabRatSat's technology can
be used as a Mars surface LDEF and to test out closed-ecology
greenhouses on Mars at low cost.
Nick Szabo [email protected]
I read it refered to as the "parabolic cross-section" rule;
the idea was that if you plot the area of the fuselage cross-
section as a function of the point fore-and-aft along the
fuselage, a plot that is a paraboloid minimizes somethin'
or 'nother (to be technical about it).
* Fred Baube (tm) * In times of intellectual ferment,
* [email protected] * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!

Funny. A bit disturbing. Forging a posting seems somewhat unethical, even

if the subject is as notorious as McElwaine.

Followups should definitely not go to sci.space.

david rickel

[email protected]

I know people hate it when someone says somethings like "there was an article

about that somewhere a while ago" but I'm going to say it anyway. I read an

article on this subject, almost certainly in Space News, and something like

six months ago. If anyone is really interested in the subject I can probably

hunt it down given enough motivation.

Josh Hopkins [email protected]

"Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes

seront capable de le realiser"

-Jules Verne

SSF is up for redesign again. Let's do it right this

time! Let's step back and consider the functionality we want:

[1] microgravity/vacuum process research

[2] life sciences research (adaptation to space)

[3] spacecraft maintenence

The old NASA approach, explified by Shuttle and SSF so far, was to

centralize functionality. These projects failed to meet

their targets by a wide margin: the military and commercial users

took most of their payloads off Shuttle after wasting much effort to

tie their payloads to it, and SSF has crumbled into disorganization

and miscommunication. Over $50 billion has been spent on these

two projects with no reduction in launch costs and littel improvement

in commercial space industrialization. Meanwhile, military and commercial

users have come up with a superior strategy for space development: the

constellation.

Firstly, different functions are broken down into different

constellations placed in the optimal orbit for each function:

thus we have the GPS/Navstar constellation in 12-hour orbits,

comsats in Clarke and Molniya orbits, etc. Secondly, the task

is distributed amongst several spacecraft in a constellation,

providing for redundancy and full coverage where needed.

SSF's 3 main functions require quite different environments

and are also prime candidates for constellization.

[1] We have the makings of a microgravity constellation now:

COMET and Mir for long-duration flights, Shuttle/Spacelab for

short-duration flights. The best strategy for this area is

inexpensive, incremental improvement: installation of U.S. facilities

on Mir, Shuttle/Mir linkup, and transition from Shuttle/Spacelab

to a much less expensive SSTO/Spacehab/COMET or SSTO/SIF/COMET.

We might also expand the research program to take advantage of

interesting space environments, eg the high-radiation Van Allen belt

or gas/plasma gradients in comet tails. The COMET system can

be much more easily retrofitted for these tasks, where a

station is too large to affordably launch beyond LEO.

[2] We need to study life sciences not just in microgravity,

but also in lunar and Martian gravities, and in the radiation

environments of deep space instead of the protected shelter

of LEO. This is a very long-term, low-priority project, since

astronauts will have little practical use in the space program

until costs come down orders of magnitude. Furthermore, using

astronauts severely restricts the scope of the investigation,

and the sample size. So I propose LabRatSat, a constellation

tether-bolo satellites that test out various levels of gravity

in super-Van-Allen-Belt orbits that are representative of the

radiation environment encountered on Earth-Moon, Earth-Mars,

Earth-asteroid, etc. trips. The miniaturized life support

machinery might be operated real-time from earth thru a VR

interface. AFter several orbital missions have been flown,

follow-ons can act as LDEFs on the lunar and Martian surface,

testing out the actual environment at low cost before $billions

are spent on astronauts.

[3] By far the largest market for spacecraft servicing is in

Clarke orbit. I propose a fleet of small teleoperated

robots and small test satellites on which ground engineers can

practice their skills. Once in place, robots can pry stuck

solar arrays and antennas, attach solar battery power packs,

inject fuel, etc. Once the fleet is working, it can be

spun off to commercial company(s) who can work with the comsat

companies to develop comsat replaceable module standards.

By applying the successful constellation strategy, and getting

rid of the failed centralized strategy of STS and old SSF, we

have radically improved the capability of the program while

greatly cutting its cost. For a fraction of SSF's pricetag,

we can fix satellites where the satellites are, we can study

life's adaptation to a much large & more representative variety

of space environments, and we can do microgravity and vacuum

research inexpensively and, if needed, in special-purpose

orbits.

N.B., we can apply the constellation strategy to space exploration

as well, greatly cutting its cost and increasing its functionality.

Mars Network and Artemis are two good examples of this; more ambitiously

we can set up a network of native propellant plants on Mars that can be used

to fuel planet-wide rover/ballistic hopper prospecting and

sample return. The descendants of LabRatSat's technology can

be used as a Mars surface LDEF and to test out closed-ecology

greenhouses on Mars at low cost.

Nick Szabo [email protected]

I read it refered to as the "parabolic cross-section" rule;

the idea was that if you plot the area of the fuselage cross-

section as a function of the point fore-and-aft along the

fuselage, a plot that is a **paraboloid** minimizes somethin'

or 'nother (to be technical about it).

* Fred Baube (tm) * In times of intellectual ferment,

* [email protected] * advantage to him with the intellect

* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented

* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!