Subject: Space-tech Digest #125 Contents: Hughes satellite on Long March (2 msgs) A look back at my summer at ISU (1 msg) Gary Hudson article (2 msgs) 'Top Secret' spaceplane (3 msgs) ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 21:08:25 EDT From: Paul Carr Subject: HS 601 on Long March To: space-tech@cs.cmu.edu I've heard rumors of the first Hughes HS601 satellite launched on a Long March, but nothing solid. Does anyone know more than I do? ------------------------------ From: Rui Sousa To: space-tech@cs.cmu.edu Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 12:37:30 GMT > I've heard rumors of the first Hughes HS601 satellite launched on a Long > March, but nothing solid. Does anyone know more than I do? I don't have here the exact date, but an Australian Hughes satellite was indeed launched on a Long March about a month ago. Rui Sousa ------------------------------ From: gwh@lurnix.COM (George William Herbert) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 17:13:07 -0700 Subject: A look back at my summer at ISU This summer I attended the International Space University summer session in Kitakyushu, Japan. I'd promised to send some status reports on what it was like to space-tech, but due to massive overload of work to do while there, I didn't have a chance. This overview is intended to convey what those messages should have, though 8-) First will be my impressions and some analysis of what we did, then finally I'll go into what I learned and how I value the experience. ISU currently is not accredited as anything; there was some hint that it was going to be for this summer, but it fell through at some point. It will be when it's permanent campus is in place, and it will teach a "Masters of Space Studies" program lasting one year then. More later. The summer started with four weeks of "Core Lectures"; four lectures a day, sometimes five (1.5 hours), and/or additional random project and other work and study totalled to about 10 hours a day, Monday thru Saturday. The Core Lectures covered the different department areas: Space Engineering, Space Architecture, Space Policy & Law, Space Business & Management, Space Physical Sciences, Space Life Sciences, Satellite Applications, Space Resources & Manufacturing, and Space Humanities. There were about 80 core lectures all told, and each one was a pretty good introduction to its specific subject. One warning: don't expect to learn anything new in your own field in your core lectures. Do expect to learn a whole lot in any field you haven't been involved in before 8-) At the same time, we started the department seminars and the design project work. The department seminars basically gave the students a chance to give a 15 min to hour talk on their work, or we had visiting lecturers in to discuss what they were doing. One of the heads of the Engineering Department, Marcel Pouliquen, is high up in SEP in France; the other, Dr. (can't remember first name) Shigehara, is involved in the ISAS and NASDA programs in Japan. Both gave talks on what they're doing during one seminar or the other. We got a bunch of good seminars, overall. There were two design projects: SSPP (Space Solar Power Program), managed by Gregg Maryniak (from Space Studies Institute), and ISUNet, managed by Jim Burke from JPL. The SSPP project was (another 8-) feasibility study on space-based solar power, as it's name implies. ISUNet was a project to design the computer and telecommunications system for ISU as it becomes a permanent campus entity (more later). SSPP was more space-related, per se, but I got a bad feeling about it during the introductions to the projects and I chose to go with ISUNet. My bad feeling wasn't entirely justified in the end; I was afraid that nothing positive or new would come out of SSPP, but in fact they did manage to propose a series of feasibility and affordability demonstrations that logically would be required before any space solar power sat could be built (and ecological/health concern studies, and ... etc. . They had a real big CPM chart of what was needed, and I think that a reasonable assesment of _how_ we get to space power is as valuable as looking at how to do the satellites etc.). I would suggest looking at the study if you're into solar power sats. ISUNet was a raving success, though the last 10 days (including 8 where I worked 110 hours) were a bit much. It's not so space-related, so I won't go into detail. Suffice it to say that the various faculty were expecting the project to be an academic exercise, not a real plan for the computer system, and that they concluded after reading it that the report was basically the first complete, coherent plan in the implimentation process. 8-) The second half of the summer was spent split about 1/3 time going into Advanced Lectures in your department, related departments, and areas of personal interest to you. These were again 1.5 hour lectures, but more in depth (more aimed at someone who already knows the field some). ISU was an interesting experience... I didn't learn as much in the academic parts as most of my fellow students, because I already try and be a generalist. Anyone who isn't much of a generalist will learn a hell of a lot; something I consider of immense value for most people. What I did learn was how to interact with a group of 30 people (the ISUNet project group) who have never met each other and don't even all speak English that well; we all learned how to work together, how to manage ourselves and the project without managing each other too much (that's discouraged by ISU policy; nobody is the "project manager"). We went through two design reviews, a final technical review of progress, and a final presentation with everyone working together as an effecient team. I now count the rest of the ISUNet teams among my friends as well as many of the people from SSPP. Learning people and project management skills in a multinational environment, getting contacts with all these up and coming engineers (presumably, space agencies and the like are sending their best and brightest, for the $12k+expenses it cost 8-) and scientists, these all were important. I learned quite a bit about business and management aspects of space, and policy and legal issues, and got some inside scoops that I am working on tracking down right now. What I see the real, long-term value of ISU being is that in 10-15 years, these people who were ISU students are all going to be senior engineers (several were already, at impressively young ages) managing all the world's space programs... and they'll all know and be able to work with each other. ISU is helping not only educate all these people in the breadth of the space field, it's also building a cooperative community from the ground up: starting with the young talented engineers/scientists/managers and bringing these people together. NASA as an organization is sort of undecided about the value of ISU, probably because it's still too small (only about 10 NASA people a year go, plus about ten NASA contractor employees and some grad students from the US). ESA, on the other hand, is sending a whole lot of people; out of about 2,000 ESA employees about 20 (plus about that many ESA contractor employees) came. Over the five years of ISU, that's several percent of ESA's employee base that's been to ISU. I see this as indicative of ho wmuch ESA is interested in being able to do joint projects in the future... ISU will be settling down in a permanent campus in 1995 (for the 95/96 school year, i presume). The three finalists for the location are Kitakyushu, Japan; Toronto, Canada, and Strausbourg, France. While bid details are supposed to be secret, due to one (outside) leak and some world-class conversational trickery by one Doug Hamilton, Canadian astronaut finalist, we got some information on the class of the offers: each site is offering on the order of $10million plus and several million dollars per year to be the central campus. ISU is going to get it's own campus and faculty, based on the site funding, donor funding, and space agency funding. The central campus/full year program is intended to be more academic in nature than the summer sessions are (which are pretty industry-oriented now; it's too short a time to do a good academic session). Final assesment: ISU is worth totally different amounts to different people. It's not worth it (summer session) from the academic standpoint, but it's got a whole load of use from the real world standpoint. Anyone who thinks that they might be managing a complex or international project, or working in one, will find it useful. Anyone who wants to generalize their knowledge will find it useful. I did, and I'd do it again if I could afford to bring my wife over for longer (which I may be able to arrange for Moscow next year; I may apply to be on staff next summer). Feel free to ask me more questions if you want. I may (in my infinite free time...) post a faculty and student list of who was there... 8-) -george william herbert gwh@lurnix.com gwh@soda.berkeley.edu gwh@isu.isunet.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 17:01:48 -0400 From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu To: space-tech@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Gary Hudson article Folks interested in SSTOs might want to read this article: AAS 91-643 "History of the Phoenix VTOL SSTO and Recent Developments in Single-Stage Launch Systems", Gary Hudson. In AAS 77, "International Space Year in the Pacific Basin", Kyoto, 1991. Pages 329-351. The article is a history of SSTO concepts, from Bono's [R]OOST to the Delta Clipper. It includes some really amusing bits skewering some critics, particularly a manager at Aerospace Corp. who was responsible for some very negative reviews of earlier SSTO proposals, then had to sign off on a proposal endorsing SSX when SDIO became interested. Hudson archly comments that this may well be the first time the Aerospace Corp. has endorsed a major new idea originating outside the Aerospace Corp. itself. Hudons expresses concerns that DC-X is focusing too little on the crucial (for SSTOs) area of lightweight structures. He debunks the idea that materials breakthroughs were needed for the Delta Clipper; he notes that it will not use any NASP-derived materials. The paper includes an appendix where Hudson shows that using off-the-shelf (in some cases, the museum shelf) aerospace hardware with known weights and performance, we could build expendable SSTOs today, using either an S-IVB stage with an SSME or six SSMEs on a shuttle ET. The S-IVB-derived launched would have a gross liftoff weight (GLOW) of 330 klb, and deliver 10-12klb (including payload shroud and support) to LEO. The ET-derived launcher would have a GLOW of 1,826 klb, and deliver about 60-72 klb to LEO. These figures could be improved with altitude-compensating nozzles, variable mixture ratio engines, dual fuels and reduced mass ETs (for example, removal of the unnecessary SRB load carry-through structure). This could push the payload of the ET-derived SSTO to over 100 klb with little risk, according to Hudson. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 11:46:21 -0500 From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu Cc: space-tech@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Gary Hudson article I have a copy of this article, and if I can get permission I think I can scan it in and put it on an ftp archive somewhere... Phil ------------------------------ To: space-tech@cs.cmu.edu Subject: 'Top Secret' spaceplane Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 12:37:37 +0100 From: Dominic Herity An Irish radio program yesterday carried a report which said that a few weeks ago a United Airlines plane had an encounter with a small, fast object (presumably small compared to an airliner). The object didn't show on radar. (Will Doppler filtering cut out fast objects ?) The report went on to speculate about a 'top secret spaceplane' project named Aurora, sponsored by the US gov't, employing 4,500 people, with an annual budget of $500M, running for the past few years. It is said that a vehicle has flown the Atlantic and been sighted over Scotland. It all sounds plausible, if unlikely. I'm sure SDIO have that kind of money to throw around. A DC-X would fit the description, so its technically and economically feasible. The only reason it sounds unlikely is the 'top secret' bit. Can anyone confirm or deny any of this ? I seem to remember a news thread a while back about 'Aurora'. Best Regards Dominic Herity ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 08:36:43 EDT From: Mark Flanagan To: dherity@dsg.cs.tcd.ie Subject: Re: 'Top Secret' spaceplane Cc: space-tech@cs.cmu.edu Here is a copy of a recent post to sci.aeronautics which provides a good description of where to look up info on Aurora: ----- Begin Included Message ----- From: larry@pdx097 (Larry Smith) Subject: Re: Please send me all known info on Aurora!!!! Sender: news@ichips.intel.com (News Account) Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 01:06:45 GMT Michael A. Kopack writes: >From what has been said in this newsgroup lately, I have become rather >intreigued with the Aurora. ... > ... OK Michael, since I haven't seen a response to your question yet, here is one. Here are references to a number of AW&ST articles and other articles that talk about 'Aurora'. 1. The Dec. 18, 1989 issue. Pages 42-43. A VISTA issue. Talks about pulser sightings + Aurora. (First report of 'the pulser'). 2. The Oct. 1, 1990 issue. Pages 20-23. More detail about pulser sightings, and a vehicle that looks like the new (now cancelled) Navy A-12 seen working with F-117As in the Southwestern Test Ranges. There are some incredibly provocative hints in this article and the next about advanced aerospace technology. 3. The Dec. 24, 1990 issue. Pages 41-44. A VISTA issue. Talks about a Mach 8 vehicle (with drawings) that uses an external burning scramjet. 4. Also check out the letter to the editor, on the last page of the AW&ST 1/8/90 issue,pg. 74. 5. AW&ST 10/28/91 Pages 68-69. Article on Pulsed Detonation Engines (PDEs) 6. AW&ST 3/9/92. Pages 66-67. An interesting possible 'Aurora' operations test at Beale AFB in the end of Feb. 92! 7. AW&ST 7/6/92. More sightings of doughnuts on a rope contrails. 8. AW&ST 7/20/92. Page 13. Article on another possible 'Aurora' propulsion mechanism - the 'impulse motor'. There was also supposed to be a Bill Sweetman piece entitled: "The Aurora Enigma", to be published in the Nov., 90 issue of Interavia Aerospace Review. There was a Bill Sweetman piece in Janes Defense Weekly, 2/28/92, pg 333 entitled "Mystery Contact May Be Aurora". There was also the most recent piece from the London "Sunday Telegraph" dated 7/26/92 entitled: "Secret US Spy Plane Is Kintyre's Dark Visitor". I have not included the articles in AW&ST or other publications that reported the sonic booms, and I may have missed some of the AW&ST 'Aurora' articles, but the above is a fairly adequate list. If you have trouble finding these, some of them are in the skunk.works mail list archives. [good discussion of pulsed detonation engines deleted] "DOUGHNUTS ON A ROPE" contrails produced by unknown high-speed, high-altitude aircraft may be the result of a Pratt & Whitney powerplant program aimed at developing what the company calls an "impulse motor". The engine is believed to be a combined cycle powerplant that integrates conventional gas turbine and rocket technologies. Such a powerplant would be capable of operating from a ground takeoff up to speeds approaching Mach 6. The unusual contrail could be the result of running the powerplant off its narrow design point, according to U.S. propulsion experts. Officials have suggested that in the past, impulse engines have been located at Edwards AFB, Calif., and at government facilities at White Sands, N.M. Any Questions? :) Larry Smith ----- End Included Message ----- From what I have heard, the near-miss was not Aurora, as it did not seem to be a pulsed detonation engine (PDE). Perhaps something else (Stealth spotter used in Desert Storm, can't find the AvWeek ref.) Mark ------------------------------ From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 14:39:58 EDT To: space-tech@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: 'Top Secret' spaceplane >It all sounds plausible, if unlikely. I'm sure SDIO have that kind of money >to throw around. There is a truly amazing body of mythology starting to surround SDIO, including the belief that it has an enormous budget and could be doing vast numbers of peculiar things without anyone knowing. It's the new "Great Satan". Please check the facts before you make such statements. The USAF could probably do it, and perhaps has; SDIO couldn't. >A DC-X would fit the description... Not even close, even if you ignore the fact that the first DC-X is still several months away from flight. DC-X is not a space*plane* at all. At airliner altitudes, it basically goes straight up or straight down. Again, please check facts before engaging keyboard. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of Space-tech Digest #125 *******************