Conference 7.286::space

    	This is not certain, but evidence such as frequent moonquakes,
    and possible volcanic eruptions (the 1959 eruption in the crater 
    which RANGER 9 crashed into in 1965), would seem to indicate thatthe
    core of Earth's Moon, Luna, is still geologically active (molten).
    
    	Larry
    

    i don't think it makes good economics to build a zero g manufacturing
    plant near the center of the moon when its much cheaper to do it
    in space, but i'm sure there is plenty of good reason to mine the
    moon. recently someone mentioned a helium isotope that is on the surface
    that could be used for fusion reactors.
    pete

     I think I heard that there is not as much iron in the core. The
    pressure should melt what ever is there.
    
     George

    
    Unless I am quite mistaken, the past response is in error.
    The core should have the highest iron concentration of any 
    ore on the moon.  That could be the best reason to dig to 
    the core.  Agree with earlier reply, it is much easier to 
    do micro-gravity in orbit.

    They would have to dig a hell of a long tunnel.

    FLETCHER SAYS MOON, NOT MARS, MAY BE BETTER FIRST STEP
 
    NASA Administrator, Dr. James C. Fletcher, said today that the
Moon, rather than Mars, may be the best initial destination for
possible U.S./USSR manned missions.  ``Going to the Moon together
would give the two leading spacefaring nations in the world an
opportunity to build a stable base for further cooperation, which
could, one day, lead to a cooperative mission to Mars,'' he said. 
 
    Dr. Fletcher stressed that any cooperative manned activity should
be preceded by a program of cooperative unmanned activities. 
 
    ``Flying out to Mars together before building such a foundation
could, for several reasons, be less practical,'' Dr. Fletcher told
participants at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs,
Colo.  In the last several months, a number of parties have advocated
a joint U.S./USSR manned mission to Mars.  Dr. Fletcher cited three
crucial factors favoring the Moon for an initial cooperative manned mission: 
 
o Timing - A joint mission to the Moon would involve a relatively
  short timetable, while a Mars mission ``would probably encompass
  four or five Presidential administrations,'' Dr. Fletcher said.  He
  said relations between the Unired States and Soviet Union have yet
  to demonstrate that degree of stability.
 
o Cooperative experience - A year ago, the United States and Soviet
  Union signed a space science agreement that established joint
  working groups in five areas.  The efforts of these groups ``could
  lay the groundwork for a strong bridge of mutual cooperation and
  mutual trust,'' he said.
 
o Technical readiness - Both nations realize that there are ``many
  technical unknowns involved in a manned Mars mission,'' Dr. Fletcher
  said.  These issues, such as the effects of prolonged weightlessness
  on the human body, must be considered before commitments can be made
  for a Mars mission.
 
    In a more general vein, Dr. Fletcher labeled 1988 ``perhaps the
most critical year in the history of the U.S. civil space program,''
and he criticized those who say American space leadership is a thing
of the past. 
 
    ``It's ironic that these doom-and-gloom-sayers have emerged this
year, just when the United States is poised to launch itself into a
new era of development and exploitation of space,'' he said. 
 
    Dr. Fletcher said the Administration's fiscal year 1989 budget
request for NASA provides the resources to reestablish U.S. leadership
in space.  He acknowledged that civil space efforts must compete with
other domestic programs for Congressional funding, but reminded his
audience of ``the benefits of long-term investments in science and
technology, which, as we have seen, are the lifeblood of the American
economy.'' 
 
    ``The nation now has established a strong national policy for
civil space activities and a budget to back it up,'' the NASA
Administrator said.  ``We have the right program at the right time to
restore U.S. Leadership in space just when we need it most -- when
competition is getting stronger.'' 
 
    Copies of Dr. Fletcher's speech are available from the NASA
Newsroom, Room 6043, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20546
(phone: 202/453-8400) and from the U.S. Space Foundation, Colorado
Springs, Colo., (719-550-1000). 
 
Debra J. Rahn				EMBARGOED UNTIL
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.		2:00 p.m. (EDT)
(Phone: 202/453-8455)			April 14, 1988
 
RELEASE:	88-52			END

Carl Sagan and Roald Sagdeyev have responded to Fletcher's suggestion
negatively.  In a news report in the 3 May edition of the Boston Globe,
Sagan is quoted as saying

     "It is by no means clear that the moon is a good test bed 
     for Mars exploration.  If we have to test Mars spacecraft,
     let's test them on Earth.

     The moon is a very long detour on the way to Mars."

This statement reinforces to me that Sagan is indeed a major league
grandstander who has the wish to be remembered for driving mankind
to Mars during his lifetime.  He is clearly less interested in
building stable PRACTICAL international relations for space exploration.
A long term international base on the moon is a much better basis
for continued international cooperation than a trip to Mars,
and it can be the basis for MANY trips out to the rest of the solar system.

- tom powers]

Why did Dr. Sagan refer to the moon as a "long detour"? Does that
mean that there is no short path from a moon base to Mars? Or
does he mean that the time taken to establish a moon base is a
waste, with respect to Mars being the final destination?

I cannot disagree with you opinion of Dr. Sagan.  He knows how to
sit on a fence and collect from both sides.

    I took it to mean that a colony on the moon would delay a Mars
    expedition.  Certainly looks like Sagan's pushing unnecessarily hard
    for a Mars expedition...
    
John

    Given the atmosphere of Mars, I think I would prefer to go there
    simply because there might be a better chance of surviving a
    catastrophe.
    
    Then again, given the atmosphere of Mars, it might be more likely
    that there would be a catastrophe, given that dust storms and other
    meteorological phenomena may play a significant role in attempting
    to establish bases on the planet.
    
    Of course, Mars would be a more interesting place to explore, who
    knows, sometime in its past it may have supported life, although
    there is currently no evidence.  The fact that there may be life
    there now is also an intriguing possiblity (I am talking about
    basic units of life, like simple celled plants).
    
    Of course the arguments for lunar exploration are very practical,
    astronomers could have dark skies all the time, even when the sun
    is shining.  There are a lot of other benefits that have been mentioned
    already.
    
    The bottom line is:  The practical side of me would like to see
    lunar bases, the romantic/explorer side of me would like to see martian
    bases (and I would like to be one of the inhabitants!).
    
    						-Dave

    A permanant base on the moon promotes a long term presence in space
    and indeed can provide a building block for future steps into deeper
    space.  A Mars expedition has the potential of being a one shot
    distraction to our longer term presence in space.
    
    Tony

    re .11  Here! Here!
    
    Any Mars 'base' for the near future is liable to be a repeat of
    Tranquility Base on the Moon, not a base but an expedition camp.  The
    debate is between spending resources on a one shot expedition to Mars
    or going back to the moon and establishing a permanent beach-head. 
    
    A Lunar base should not be just a scientific outpost.  The Moon
    represents a resource that can be used to support extended exploration
    of the solar system.  Today an expedition to Mars must be a one shot
    trip, because just getting there is going to be outragously expensive
    while maintaining habitation there by shipping material directly from
    the Earth's surface will be impossibly expensive.
    
    Perhaps we can do both.  Given a multinational effort perhaps we can
    mount an expedition to explore Mars and lay the ground work for a
    permanent base while at the same time building the facilitys in local
    space required to support such a base.  The technical challenges here
    are minor compared to the advances required in human relations.  (Our
    government is having a bear of a time working out the conflicting
    interests of the various space station partners, who are our allies
    mind you, much less launching a joint Mars expedition with the Soviets
    where we would be the _junior_ partner.)  In the meantime a Lunar base
    will be easier to support while we learn to live in space, to use
    the resources there to support ourselves and most important, turn
    a profit.
        
    As an engineer I like to see actions proceeding out of a coordinated
    plan, but truth to tell, the engineer has always been in service to the
    interests of society which are often uncoordinated and in conflict.
    Nothing ever gets built for just one reason and I expect it will be the
    same with space bases.  
    
    
    Mike Hughes  (...no relation to Gary)

    How about a Mars expedition with a 10 year layover on the Moon.
    
    You know what I really don't care much if its Mars or the Moon,
    my real fear is that they chose the third option "doing nothing".
    I guess they could say they already the "doing nothing" program
    lunched and they shouldn't change in mid step.
    
    Gil

    Another one-shot, i.e. the Mars trip, would be pretty much useless
    since it would serve primarily as a public relations stunt and as
    another research experiment.  Space exploration isn't going to do
    diddly in our lifetimes unless we take one of the 'next steps'
    available to us in space.  Namely, building extra-terrestrial
    structures and businesses.
    
    Let's go to the moon.  We've got to set up camp somewhere instead of
    just walking through the woods.  Fine, Mars is deeper into the woods,
    but we'd still only end up comfy and cozy in front of a fire in the
    lodge at the end of the day - having only the benefit of the experience
    and some more rocks.
    
    This, by the way, is an attempt at arguing against Gil's comment in .13
    about not caring if it's the Moon or Mars.  As I see it, it matters a
    great deal.
    
John

	    OK you talked me into it, its a Moon Base or bust.
    Gil

Just wondering, what's the potential for valuable minerals such
as silver, gold, or diamonds on the Moon or Mars?  There must
have been studies made of this point.  Imagine what another
Comstock Lode (Virginia City, Nev) would do on Mars! 

Of course, what I'm saying is that we need greed to open these
places up, not exactly a complement to mancruel, as I'm wont to
call us.  But that's what opened up the West, and after the gold
and silver went away, people stayed and built.

Never really thought of these places in the context of valuable
minerals before...always thought these bases would be making
perfect ball bearings or something. 

How different would the mining techniques be in such places?

    The Moon and mars are not as geologically active as the earth so
    it is unlikely they would be good sources of diamonds which require
    heat and pressure.
    
    The moon is considerably lighter than the earth and would be less
    rich in gold and silver.  Our samples of the moon show it is rich
    in titanium, silicon, oxygen and aluminium, all vital to a lunar
    base.  In addition the oxygen could be used for propulsion within
    the solar system (at liftoff about 75-80% of the mass of the shuttle
    is oxygen).
    
    The chemical composition of Mars is unknown (the mars geosciences
    explorer, I think scheduled for the early 90's should give us some
    clues).  However it is not likely to be vastly different from the
    moon with the addition of some more iron and perhaps hydrogen.
    
    The real mineralogical treasure troves in the solar system should
    be the asteriods and mercury.  The asteroids may be undifferentiated
    bodies and thus have high percentage concentrations of gold, silver
    platinum, etc, although no "lodes" as that requires differentiation.
    Mercury has a density near that of earth and should be easy to mine
    (tricky solar protection needed tho).
    
    Tony

    The problem with making a profit out there is economics.  I've been
    told that at current launch costs (using shuttle) it wouldn't be
    feasable to do transmutation of lead to gold (assuming it could
    be done only in orbit).  Unfortunately launch costs will only go
    down with routine and frequent access to space, but that won't happen
    until we can do something 'useful' up there, which won't happen
    till launch costs come down......
    
    Willie
     

    Someone in this conference brought up the point that noone today would
    be willing to back construction of the national highway system -
    meaning at the governmental level.  The comment was made to point out
    the lack of willingness and foresight in government, specifically with
    respect to the space program.
    
    We may just be before our time and are seeing farther ahead into the
    future of mankind than the rest of our neighbors.  They don't see it,
    we do, and when the time comes that they see it, things will happen,
    probably in a big hurry.
    
    So I don't think the 'usefullness' of space will be at issue when we go
    full bore, I think it will be the 'necessity' of something that is in
    space that will do it.  So let's all get settled for a long wait while
    we mess up the planet to the point that we want to get off.
    
John

>    The problem with making a profit out there is economics.  I've been
>    told that at current launch costs (using shuttle) it wouldn't be
>    feasable to do transmutation of lead to gold (assuming it could
>    be done only in orbit).  Unfortunately launch costs will only go
>    down with routine and frequent access to space, but that won't happen
>    until we can do something 'useful' up there, which won't happen
>    till launch costs come down......
     

Launch costs would be considerably less from a moon base due to the lower 
gravity.  The vehicles could be much smaller while carrying the same load.  
The first thing we really do need is a permanently manned, self-sufficient 
moon base.  This would eliminate the high cost of sending supplies (air, 
food, water) to the moon.  The next thing we need is an exploration effort 
designed to find to areas of the inner solar system that we can "exploit" 
(if this sounds familiar it's because this is the same theme that I 
expounded upon in the note concerned with WHY we should be in space).  Once 
we have found the riches in spaces, mankind (or mancruel if you prefer) 
will trip over itself in the rush to get there.

Rich

PS. Think about this for a minute when comparing the launch costs of going 
from the Earth to the moon verses the other way around.  Think about the 
size of the Saturn rockets used to launch the Apollo capsule to the moon 
and the size of the rockets used to return the Apollo calsule from the 
moon.  Truely we need a permanent manned base on the moon capable of doing 
scientific research, vessel manufacturing, fuel manufacturing, materials 
processing; in short everything needed to maintain a presence in space.

    	The APOLLO "capsule" itself was not landed on Luna's surface,
    the Lunar Module (LM) was used for transporting the astronauts there.
    The APOLLO "capsule" (I prefer its official designation - the
    Command/Service Module (CSM)) orbited Luna while the LM was on the
    moon's surface.
    
    	Larry
    

    I happen to personally agree that we really need a permanent lunar
    colony, but it might to hard to sell to the venture capitalists
    on the basis of "lotsa dollars to be made immediately".  Long range
    it would be very good in economic terms, but it needs a rather large
    investment to set up.....  Now if we could borrow a few lawn ornaments
    from NASA (not that we can fly Saturn Vs any more... :+{  ).....
    
    Willie

    Re: .19
    
    The highway system is an interesting example.  I just had a discussion
    with someone the other day who pointed out that it got its initial
    funding primarily because of its "defense" capabilities, otherwise
    it might never have been built!
    
    SDI may be what saves our space program...
    
    							-Dave

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 17:56 CST
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%[email protected]>
Subject:  Journal of Lunar Exploration and Development
Original_To:  SPACE
 
    I'm passing on an announcement from Dr. Gay Canough, who's
starting a new journal.  If you have an interest in lunar affairs,
subscribe or get your institution's library to subscribe. 
 
                                       Bill Higgins
                                       Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                       [email protected]
                                       SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS
 ==========================================================
                    ANNOUNCING :
 
    **** THE JOURNAL OF LUNAR EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ****
 
    PURPOSE:
 
    This publication is meant to serve as a forum for discussion of
lunar science and development activities. Because workers in this area
are scattered around the world, it is important to keep in touch with
work going on through this type of publication. There has proved to be
widespread interest in returning to the Moon, both in the private and
government sectors. It is our aim to publish all articles relevant to
the Moon.  
 
    FORMAT:
 
     Articles on anything relating to the Moon are welcome. Some examples: 
 
     * Scientific papers on any lunar studies
     * Summary articles on past lunar studies
     * New analysis of old lunar data (which may or may not
           have been looked at before)
     * Lunar Base studies,designs
     * Materials processing as related to Lunar materials
     * Power systems for lunar utilizations
     * Designs for robotic prospectors and mining missions,
           as well as manned ones.
     * ETC...
 
    These are just a few items, not meant to cover everything. We
encourage submissions of all kinds to find out all the different Moon
related work going on. You may request peer review for articles. 
 
    In addition to technical articles there will be a section for
news; that is, who is doing what, where and conference and meeting
announcements. There will also be a forum for opinions (viewpoints and
letters to editor). And there will be some departments, such as
'Problem of the Month'. Feel free to suggest other sections, departments. 
 
    This journal will be completely public, so please do not send
proprietary information. 
 
    SUBMISSIONS:
 
    Please send all submissions to
 
     Dr. Gay E. Canough, Editor
     ETM, Inc.
     PO Box 67
     Endicott, NY 13760
 
*** DEADLINE for the first issue is March 1,1989 ***
 
     If you have a computer, we encourage electronic submissions. Call
Gay at (607) 785-6499 for assistance in phone transfer. Or you may
send a 5.25 floppy disk. We have an IBM PC XT, and current formats
supported are DisplayWrite 3 and ASCII. In about 2 months, we will
support Pagemaker and Generic CAD formats as well. BITnet users may
send articles to CANOUGH@FNAL. In the near future a bulletin board
will be installed. 
 
    SUBSCRIPTIONS:
 
     We are accepting subscriptions now for $50/yr. The first issue
will appear in March, 1989. The subscription rate is set only to cover
the costs of putting out the journal. The journal will be quarterly in
1989 and monthly starting in 1990. Make checks payable to
ExtraTerrestrial Materials, Inc. 

        The following article is from the Space Activists Digest, 
    written by Chris Welty, who is the Moderator of the newsgroup.
    Information on how to receive/send to the Digest appears after
    this article:
 
        The National Space Council, headed by Vice President Quayle, is
    urging the President to launch a "JFK-like manned assault on the
    Moon, including the establishment of a permanent base there."  The
    NSC is also advising President Bush to announce this effort in a
    speech to Congress commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Moon
    landing (July 20).  This information was also reported in THE
    WASHINGTON TIMES (July 11, p. A1). 
 
        A permanent base on the Moon would provide major scientific 
    advances for the US, the most important of which is badly needed 
    direction for the "dying" space program.  A permanent Moon base 
    would also provide an ideal stepping stone for a later mission to 
    the planet Mars. 
 
        This proposal by the NSC has caused some controversy within the
    Bush Administration, as the government is no longer convinced that the
    space program is important to the people.  This country needs such an
    effort, if for no other reason than to stimulate the imaginations and
    spirits of a younger generation whose only heroes are Wall Street
    slicksters and rock stars.  All persons are urged to call the
    Presidential Comment Line at (202) 456-7639, and express their 
    opinions on the need for such a space program. 
    ---
 
        I sent a copy of this, titled "PRESS RELEASE" to the local TV
    stations here, and was invited on the local news for a brief interview.  
    I encourage everyone to try it - this week TV stations are looking for 
    news about the space program.  It is VERY EASY to get on a local news 
    broadcast, and you can reach a LOT of people.  I've done this three 
    times already, and it works! 
 
        TO RECEIVE SPACE ACTIVISTS DIGEST:

    Submissions: DECWRL::"[email protected]"
    Requests, policy: DECWRL::"[email protected]"
    Back issues are available from host archive.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.10] in
    the files space-activists/Vxx/Nyy (ie space-activists/V01/N01 for V1#1), 
    mail requests will not be promptly satisfied.  If you can't reach
    `cs.rpi.edu' you may want to use `turing.cs.rpi.edu' instead.

After I got this, I called the number, and it was answered, "Executive
Office of the President, may I help you?"  Gulp...

In any case, I said something to the effect of, "I understand that the
National Space Council is planning to...." and the voice on the other
end confirmed this without me really asking.  I continued by saying that
I was calling to express my strong support.  The voice thanked me kindly
an assured me that my support had been recorded and the information would
get to the President.

Let's hope it makes a difference!

Burns

    I hear that, sometime today, the Prez is going to announce plans
    for a Lunar base - then a push to Mars.
    
     I was wondering what the legal issues would be in establishing
    a base on the moon.
    
     Who owns the moon?
    
     Who owns the base?
    
     Do all governments have a say in what any one government does on
    the moon (or any other planet)?
    
    Gregg

    	No nation or individual owns the Moon or any of the other planets
    in our solar system.  The 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty
    allows only the peaceful uses of the Moon and other celestial bodies
    by all nations.
    
    	As for the base, it would be owned by whomever builds it.
    
    	Larry
    

    re: .28
    
    The base would be owned by whomever builds it but I take it that
    the land that it is on (ie: the moon), since it is owned by noone,
    would be open to whomever wished to walk upon it.
    
    This is going to make a lot of lawyers very, very happy...
    jim
    

    If I don't own the moon, then is it ok for me to manufactur things
    from lunar materials (outside of survival material)?
    
    Can I then sell the manufactured goods to someone else?
    
    .29
   
    I am not so concerned about greedy lawyers as I am about countries
    going to war over the "colonies". 
    
    Gregg

    re .27-.30
    
    Better yet:
    
    If I'm a corporation, and I build a moonbase (or orbital station)
    and officially move my headquarters to it, have I avoided taxes
    to the federal government?
    
    If my lunar base dumps toxic waste all over the lunar surface, who
    has the jurisdiction to make me stop?
    Who actually will make me stop?              
    
    
    I remember suggesting to my 5th grade class that we could launch
    toxic waste (under its previous name of "pollution") in large rockets
    to the sun. If someone had convinced Congress then that it was worth
    the expense then:
    
    We'd have a (slightly) cleaner environment.
    Some rocket company (who built the Saturn V again?) would have made
    	some huge bucks.
    We'd currently have an operating heavy lift rocket with almost 20
    	years of use and R&D improvements.
    We'd have developed a private sector use of space - which could
    	only have led to more uses.
    
    :-)
    The cost was rather prohibitive (part of it could have been inflicted
    on the companies causing the waste on a by-the-pound basis, giving
    them incentive to decrease the waste they produced), but that meant
    little to an eleven year-old.
        
    					-**Ted**-

    The Duke has already proposed a tax incress for Luna...:*(
    john
    

    Re:.31
    	If a corporation built a moonbase or space station and moved their
    headquarters there I believe that they would still be under the
    juristiction of the state or country in which it incorporated. The problem
    of having a moonbase or space station is that it is not a recognised
    sovereign entity. Only if the base or station declared its independence
    and that independence was recognised at very least by the counrty of
    incorporation would there be a problem. But with the potential loss of
    tax revenue (especially from a corporation that could afford to have a
    headquarters in space to begin with) this is highly unlikely. If that
    were the case, the independence would have to be recognised by some
    "influential" countries that could enforce that independence through
    military or economic means (and once again this is unlikely unless these
    countries had something to gain from it).
    
    				Drew                                   
    

    Re .31
    
    If it works or not depends on when its done. For the present and
    near future, those people who work in space, moon, etc shouldn't 
    be called astronauts, cosmonauts, etc but marionets. There is so 
    many strings on then, that even breathing is controlled by string.
    
    Gil

    Re .31
    
      Nice idea for getting rid of waste, but I think you're right about
    the cost; almost all toxic waste could be recovered/destroyed more
    cheaply than by putting it into space. The only exception might
    be radioactive waste, which can't be destroyed. Trouble is, it wouldn't
    be destroyed by an accident in flight either; and imagine the fuss
    if it were placed in orbit, and then a booster failed (cf Hipparcos)
    to send it on out? It would be sitting in LEO, getting ready to
    come down on someone, but who? The anti-space lobby would have a
    field day, especially if it ended up on a well-populated area.

    
    Re .31
    
      As far as the tax thing, a manufacturing corporation will be
    taxed on the profits of each subsidury by the government where the
    subsidury resides. That is to assume that Digital, for instance,
    would/could not move all aspects of the corporation to the moon,
    (Could you imagine a fleet of Shuttles as field service vehicles!)
    and would maintain some level of earth bound activity. Now in theory,
    something like an insurance company (pretty much information processors
    exclusively) might be able to take the whole company up. The only
    problem is that the cost of housing and transportation and other
    services would be so high that they would be better off paying taxes.
    Still a slick idea.
    
      Now - the toxic waste. 
      Lets suppose that the most abundant material, with the highest
    level of radioactivity were spent fuel rods from reactors. I'm sure
    that there are buried containers full of contaminated smocks, gloves
    and other protective clothing - along with irradiated (sp) water
    various pieces of metal fab - and tons of who knows what else. But
    I think we'll agree that many of these things are not as dangerous
    as a spent fuel rod, and can be more easilly dealt with by the
    available technology (wrap it up and bury it for 25000 years and
    hope it stays where we put it).
    
    Q. How many lbs/tons of fuel rods are consumed each year by the
    nuclear industry (approx)?
    
    Q. How many tons of shielding material (minimum to prevent critical
    mass) would be required to load a bulk pod for lift off?
    
    Here's the big one.
    Q. How many 20 ton launches per year to keep up with the global
    annual production? (After all - it's EVERYONEs problem. Right?)
    
    Just for fun we'll assume a BDB with 20 ton lift - a roughly cylindrical 
    load pod - the booster motor is delivered seperately and mated in
    LEO so that in case of failure it can be replaced (send up a shuttle
    with 4 or 5 of them, moor them at the space station (which would
    be feasable now that we have a daily requirement.) and use them
    as required. There wouldn't be a need for a high capacity as all
    we would need is something over escape velocity and let it fall
    into the sun. So what if it took 15 years. Actually a little more
    punch on the BDB and you wouldn't need the booster motor.
    
    Rob Wall
    
    P.S. I know I'm going to get roasted by the "what if we suffer another
    Challenger-style accident and drop a radioactive payload on Miami
    Beach?" type of reply, but what the hey! I don't run Nasa or the
    nuclear industry (I bet you're glad!).
    ��
    \/
    
      
    

RE        <<< Note 359.31 by PIGGY::SCHWARTZ "Turtle Excluder Devices?" >>>

>    If I'm a corporation, and I build a moonbase (or orbital station)
>    and officially move my headquarters to it, have I avoided taxes
>    to the federal government?

  A corporation is a legal entity. Without the laws of some state, it
doesn't exist. You can move yourself, your people, and your equipment,
but the corporation exists in the state where it was chartered. Tax
laws for corporations differ from state to state.
    
>    If my lunar base dumps toxic waste all over the lunar surface, who
>    has the jurisdiction to make me stop?
    
  No one. This sort of thing would have to be settled by treaty.
    
>    Who actually will make me stop?              

  Your creditors when you run out of money.

  George

    UPce 09/19/90 1743 A lunar filling station could cut launch costs by half
 
    By MARC MAGLIARI
    CHAMPAIGN, Ill.  (UPI) -- Two University of Illinois professors are
testing rocket fuels made from materials that can be mined and refined on
the Moon, a step toward setting up a series of space fuel service stations.

   "In planetary missions to Mars and beyond, if there was propellant you
could find on the way, you can go farther and cheaper," said Herman
Krier, a professor of mechanical and industrial engineering.  "It would
be neat if you can land somewhere and pick up some fuel for a return trip.

   Krier and Rodney Burton, a professor of aeronautical and astronautical
engineering, are conducting experiments funded by a one-year, $136,000
grant from NASA, through the Lunar Propellants Group at its Lewis
Research Center in Cleveland.

   They are investigating the use of lunar-mined and -refined aluminum,
magnesium, and oxygen as rocket propellant.  The combustion of these
materials is highly energetic, and producing fuel from them on the Moon
could be cost-effective.

   "The biggest cost of a launch is carrying the weight and if a way
could be found to gather fuel on the Moon for space travel, the total
weight of the rocket could be reduced," Burton said.

   It costs about $250 million to launch a vehicle carrying a payload of
about 11 tons at the 6.9 miles per second needed to break gravity, Krier
said.  If additional fuel for space travel could be obtained on the Moon,
Burton said, a smaller rocket could be used and the initial launch cost
could be cut in half.

   The cost of the actual mining and processing of the fuel would be
minimal once the proposed manned Moon station is developed, Burton added.

   Aluminum and magnesium mined on the Moon could even be formed into
structural girders for spacecraft, which could then be lifted off the
Moon's surface with propellants made of lunar material.

   The researchers, assisted by graduate and undergraduate students, will
simulate rocket combustion with a recently built high-pressure device
called a shock tube.  The shock tube is a 10-meter-long cylinder with an
aluminum barrier separating high-pressure helium from low-pressure oxygen.

   "We're seeing if we can burned powdered aluminium," Krier said.

   Lunar-like propellant samples will be placed at the oxygen end of the
tube, near a clear quartz window that will allow a high-speed camera to
tape-record the test.  When the barrier is broken, a shock wave increases
the pressure and temperature of the oxygen inside the tube, igniting the
propellant.

   By chemically changing the mix of the propellant, the researchers hope
to find the optimum formula for use in space.

   The research team also hopes to develop information to help design a
small, lunar propellant-burning rocket engine for future experiments.

   "Any manned mission has to be a round trip and now you have to take
all the propellant with you," Krier said.  "The 'in situ' program of NASA
is:  'we want a filling station when we get there'.

   "To some people it sounds far-fetched, but it is no more far-fetched
than landing people on the Moon was 30 years ago," Krier added.

   The project is part of a long-range research effort by the U of I to
create a multi-disciplinary Advanced Propulsion Center in the College of
Engineering, which would be funded by state and federal agencies and
private industry, Burton said.
 

Article: 1330
From: [email protected] (Ralph Merkle)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: NASA study on self replicating systems from 1980
Date: 14 Oct 91 21:18:37 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
 
This is a re-post from a year and a half ago summarizing a NASA study
from 1980 which studied self replicating manufacturing systems. 
 
A summary of the NASA report appears in Foresight Update #9
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
In 1980 NASA conducted a workshop on "Advanced Automation for Space
Missions."  A substantial portion of the resulting report discussed a
self-replicating lunar manufacturing facility.  Chapter 5,
"Replicating systems concepts: self-replicating lunar factory and
demonstration" is about 150 pages long (the entire report is about 400
pages). The chapter reviews self-replicating systems in general, Von
Neumann's work on self-replicating systems in particular, discusses
various strategies for self-replication, and goes into considerable
detail in the design of a lunar self-replicating system based on
conventional technology.  The "seed" system would be 100 tons -- about
4 Apollo missions to the Moon. 
 
In the "Conclusions and Recommendations" they say:
 
-----------------------------------
The Replicating Systems Concept Team reached the following
technical conclusions:
 
   o    The theoretical concept of machine duplication is
        well developed.  There are several alternative
        strategies by which machine self-replication can be
        carried out in a practical engineering setting.
 
   o    There is also available a body of theoretical automation
        concepts in the realm of machine construction by machine,
        in machine inspection of machines, and machine repair
        of machines, which can be drawn upon to engineer practical
        systems capable of replication.
 
   o    An engineering demonstration project can be initiated
        immediately, to begin with simple replication of robot
        assembler by robot assembler [the macroscopic variety]
        from supplied parts, and proceeding in phased steps
        to full reproduction of a complete machine processing
        or factory system by another machine processing system,
        supplied, ultimately, only with raw materials.
-----------------------------------
 
Interestingly, almost all of the complexity in the self-replicating
lunar manufacturing system involved making the parts.  Assembly of the
parts, once manufactured, was simple by comparison.  Of course,
nanotechnology should make the manufacture of parts relatively easy.... 
 
The report also discusses the implications of self-replicating
systems.  One consequence:  "From the human standpoint, perhaps the
most exciting consequence of self-replicating systems is that they
provide a means for organizing potentially infinite quantities of
matter.  This mass could be so organized as to produce an ever-
widening habitat for man throughout the Solar System. Self-replicating
homes, O'Neill-style space colonies, or great domed cities on the
surfaces of other worlds would allow a niche diversification of such
grand proportions as never before experienced by the human species." 
 
In the introduction, they say:  "The 10-week study was conducted
during the summer of 1980 by 18 educators from universities throughout
the United States who worked with 15 NASA program engineers." 
 
Copies are available from NTIS.  Mail order:
 
NTIS
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA. 22161
 
Telephone orders with payment via major credit cards are accepted.
Call:  703-487-4650 and request "N83-15348.  Advanced Automation for
Space Missions."  (To repeat in case of garbles: 703-487-4650, NTIS
order number: N83-15348). 
 
Cost is about $40.00, various shipping options are available.
 
You can also get a price quote by telephone.

Article: 623
From: [email protected] (John Magliacane)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: * SpaceNews 30-Mar-92 *
Date: 28 Mar 92 01:10:09 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: ka2qhd - Ocean NJ
 
SB NEWS @ AMSAT < KD2BD $SPC0330
* SpaceNews 30-Mar-92 *
 
Bulletin ID: $SPC0330
 
                              =========
                              SpaceNews
                              =========
 
                         MONDAY MARCH 30, 1992
 
SpaceNews originates at KD2BD in Wall Township, New Jersey, USA.  It
is published every week and is made available for unlimited distribution.
 
* DIGIMOON NEWS *
=================
The following is the latest update regarding the progress of the DIGIMOON
project.  This project proposes to place a packet radio digital repeater
system on the surface of Earth's moon in an effort to extend the range
and performance of terrestrial amateur packet radio networks.  This update
comes to us by way of DIGIMOON project manager Eduardo Sweet, LU7AKC:
 
HR LU7AKC DIGIMOON PROJECT BULLETIN PRODM008 FROM LU7AKC @ LU7AKC.CF.ARG.SOAM
BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA MARCH 17, 1992
 
"Project Artemis" de Walt, N3KVQ
 
While flying an amateur spacecraft to the Moon with the DigiMoon device is
out of the question, riding on a US, European, Soviet, or Japanese lunar
lander is possible.  In fact, NASA is conducting studies right now for
"Project Artemis," a small, low-cost (in relative terms) lunar lander to be
launched in 1995 or 1996.
 
I'm a professor of Aerospace Engineering and my area of specialty is
spacecraft design.  In my senior design course right now, I have two groups
of students working on lunar landers along the lines of the NASA Artemis
proposal.  I suggested to the students that they include some sort of
amateur radio payload, but they did not include one.  Still, their work can
be useful as a reference in the future.  I will be glad to send you a copy
of each final report at the end of the semester if you are interested.
 
The two-week long lunar night poses difficult design challenges for both the
electrical power and thermal control subsystems.  Even if DigiMoon was a
separate payload in its own container, it would have to be designed to
withstand the very cold temperatures of the lunar night.  Solar power works
well for the lunar day, but not for the night.
 
Pointing and zooming a camera would be pretty difficult.
 
73, Walt (N3KVQ @ KA3RFE.MD.USA.NA)
 
Thanks to all those who sent feedback to and/or helped the DIGIMOON project,
especially:
 
G3RUH  James Miller
KD2BD  John A. Magliacane & * SpaceNews *
KP4EHE Manuel Marrero
LU1BOR Federico
LU1COC Alberto Ibertis
LU2BDT Mario Ibertis Rivera
LU3AGJ Juan Giometti
LU4AEY Claudio Marco Zanella
LU4AIW Eduardo Giacchino
LU4DGN Carlos Farenga
LU7DTK Jorge
LU8DYF Norberto Pennini
N3KVQ  Walt
N7JBO  John
PY2BJO Junior De Castro
UA3CR  Leonid Labutin
 
Feedback regarding the DIGIMOON project may be directed to LU7AKC using
any of the following paths:
 
PACKET   : LU7AKC @ LU7AKC.#COL.CF.ARG.SOAM
SATELLITE: LU7AKC @ LU8DYF (or any packet SATellite GATEway)
 
MAIL:      Eduardo Sweet, LU7AKC
           DIGIMOON Project
           Ramon Freire 487,
           Buenos Aires, (1426),
           Argentina,
           South America.
 
[Info via Eduardo Sweet, LU7AKC, DIGIMOON Project manager]
 
* THANKS *
==========
Thanks to all those who sent comments to SpaceNews, especially:
 
N1GKE  JF2ONG  N2IOP  WA2N  G4IJL  KC4VBT  KD6CXX  N6RXA  ZS6FT  LU7AKC
N7NIP  WN9L    W0XK
 
* FEEDBACK/INPUT WELCOMED *
===========================
Mail to SpaceNews should be directed to the editor (John, KD2BD) via any
of the following paths:
 
FAX      : 1-908-747-7107
UUCP     : ...ocpt.ccur.com!ka2qhd!kd2bd
BITNET   : ...princeton!ocpt!ka2qhd!kd2bd
PACKET   : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA
INTERNET : [email protected] -OR- kd2bd%[email protected]
 
MAIL     : John A. Magliacane, KD2BD
           Department of Electronics Technology
           Advanced Technology Center
           Brookdale Community College
           Lincroft, New Jersey  07738
           U.S.A.
 
    <<=- SpaceNews: The first amateur newsletter to be read in space! -=>>
 
-- 
John A. Magliacane                 FAX  : (908) 747-7107
Electronics Technology Department  AMPR : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA
Brookdale Community College        UUCP : ...!rutgers!ka2qhd!kd2bd
Lincroft, NJ  07738  USA           VOICE: (908) 842-1900 ext 607

    
    Could non-scientific colonization of the moon start up with an:
    
    		HOSPITAL & RETIREMENT CENTER  ???
    
    If the effects of reduced gravity are found to be good for weak
    people (due to sickness or age)  then the moon could become the
    Hospital & Retiremnt center of the future.   (For those who can
    aford it ... ;-)
    
    Plans to study the long-term effecs of no-gravity already exist.
    There is even proposal for a variable gravity study facility in
    low Earth orbit. 
    
    So if the results are promising, among the first permanent moon
    residents will be a lot of sick/old rich people.   That in turn
    means that lots of companies would move their  headquarters  to
    the moon by default, and so on.................................
    

Article: 45848
From: [email protected] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Energy from Dirt! (was Re: Space Power)
Date: 9 Jul 92 17:01:39 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes: 

> I have made a list of all the ways I know that Space can be used to provide
> energy to Earth. Does anyone know any others? [list deleted]
 
Another:  Lunar dirt.  The Moon sits high in Earth's gravity well.
Measured in terms of gravitational potential energy, "a pound of lunar
soil contains more energy than a pound of gasoline."  See Donald
Kingsbury and Roger Arnold, two-part article called "The Spaceport" in
*Analog* during 1979.  Arnold is on Internet but I have mislaid his
address. 
 
They were proposing a long mass-driver-type catapult in low Earth
orbit.  It would "catch" suborbital payloads launched from Earth,
using the mass driver to decelerate (accelerate? Anyway, reduce the
relative rocket and the catapult to zero) the payloads.  This would,
of course, steal momentum from the station and lower its orbit.  The
advantage was that the launch systems on the surface could be smaller
and cheaper than full-orbital launchers. 
 
Factories on the Moon would build and launch (probably by mass driver)
similar payloads.  The station would decelerate *them*, stealing
gravitational potential energy from the Moon, and *raise* its orbit. 
 
Nice way to move energy around.  Also makes you get out your
calculator and see what you can do with the rest of the Solar System.
Powering the Plutonian catapult, which gives a large delta-v to
payloads you're catching on Mercury, is a problem, though.
 
> x) Szabo's  Jupiter Satellite Scheme. Wrap one or two of Jupiters inner
> moons in superconducting coils and it will act as a huge generator as it
> orbits in Jupiter's powerfull magnetic field.
 
Careful with the attributions; Nick is an advocate of this, but I'm
not sure who actually originated it.  Paul Dietz was involved in
early discussions of it.
 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [email protected]
   -   -       Internet:  [email protected]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 


Article: 45879
From: [email protected] (Robert Elton Maas)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Delivering payloads to the Moon by basketball-style "lay-up"
Date: 10 Jul 92 01:17:08 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. Contact: Customer Service 
              [email protected]
 
(I thought of this in March, and John Roberts
<[email protected]> suggested I write it up and post it to
sci.space but I've been too busy until now. If I already posted it
then forgot I did and am re-posting, oops!) 
 
If we want to have a manned colony or tele-operated factory etc. on
the Moon, we will need to land supplies at regular intervals to make
up for wear&tear on equipment and natural leakage and degrading of
chemicals. But it's too expensive to soft-land using rockets, and too
damaging to equipment to hard-land at orbital or escape speeds, and
there's no substantial atmosphere to allow aerodynamic braking and
parachute landing. 
 
My proposal is to use a mass-driver or slingshot on board the delivery
vehicle throw the payload backwards to counter orbital or parabolic
trajectory at perilune (nearest point to Moon, did I spell it
correctly?), which could be ten to fifty miles from the surface, so
that the payload has nearly zero velocity relative to the Moon when
released. It then free-falls under low lunar gravity, striking the
surface with a speed of 1000 feet per second if dropped from about 18
miles, or 2000 fps if dropped from about 71 miles. This is several
orders of magnitude less than orbital or escape speed, thus could mean
the difference between successful delivery of delicate equipment (in
carefully padded crates) or bulk cargo (no padding needed) this way
compared to having the crates or bulk cargo mostly vaporized and/or
buried deep under the surface if arriving at orbital/escape speed. The
gentler drop could also make it possible to set up a soft-landing pad
which absorbs energy from the arriving payload by crushable foam
materials or magnetic braking, which would not be feasible with
orbital/escape speed payloads (the landing pad would be vaporized too). 
 
What do you folks think of the idea? Is it new or is somebody already
working on the idea (or has it already been dismissed for some reason)? 

Article: 45895
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Dominic Herity)
Subject: Re: Delivering payloads to the Moon by basketball-style "lay-up"
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 13:30:03 GMT
 
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
 
>My proposal is to use a mass-driver or slingshot on board the delivery
>vehicle throw the payload backwards to counter orbital or parabolic
>trajectory at perilune (nearest point to Moon, did I spell it
>correctly?), which could be ten to fifty miles from the surface, so
>that the payload has nearly zero velocity relative to the Moon when
>released.
 
It would be even more ambitious to shoot the payload (without delivery
vehicle) down the throat of a mass driver on the lunar surface. The
mass driver would bring it to rest. The same mass driver could be used
to launch stuff from the Moon. This would avoid the penalty of a
flying mass driver. Since the Moon rotates in phase with its orbit, a
mass driver located in the centre of the far side of the Moon could be
used continuously to decelerate payloads arriving from Earth or L3 (3?). 
 
Obviously, precise aiming is required, but I can't think why the
trajectory wouldn't be predictable. Some control gear could be
attached to the payload, maybe a radio beacon and some thrusters for
terminal guidance. Safety is another issue. No human should get within
a few km of the thing when it is operational. And it wouldn't be very
economic if the mass driver were written off every few months by a
stray payload. 
 
Dominic Herity
 

Article: 46415
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (University Space Society)
Subject: Some Lunar Resource Mapper Information
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:12:00 GMT
 
Here is some Lunar Resource Mapper information that I have gleaned
from publications and proceedings. I hope this is of some interest. 
 
    Gamma-Ray and Neutron Spectrometer for the Lunar Resource Mapper           
 
One of the early Space Exploration Initiatives will be a lunar orbiter
to map the composition of the Moon. This mission is needed to support
further lunar exploration and habitation and will provide a valuable
dataset for understanding lunar geological processes. The payload will
consist of the gamma-ray and neutron spectrometer discussed here, an
X-ray fluorescence imager, and possibly one or two other instruments.
The spacecraft will be small (<100 kg), built on a fast schedule
(about three years), and have a low cost (about $100M including
launch). Launch is tentatively scheduled for April 1995. The program
will be similar to the ALEXIS (Array of Low- Energy X-ray Imaging
Sensors) program at Los Alamos, which is scheduled to be launched as a
small satellite in April 1992. 
 
	Most gamma rays used to map lunar elements are in the energy
range of 0.2-8 MeV. The gamma-ray detector will contain a ~70%
efficient [relative to a 7.62-cm- diameter x 7.62-cm-length NaI(Tl)
scintillator] n-type germanium crystal. N-type is used because it is
much less susceptible to radiation damage than p-type germanium. No
annealing is planned because the radiation damage accumulated in the
one-year mission will not seriously degrade the energy resolution if
the crystal remains below 100 K. Because a Stirling cycle cooler will
be used, the crystal will be mounted ustechniques commercially
developed in recent years for operating germanium detectors on
vibrating platforms. A bismuth germanate (BGO) anticoincidence shield
on the sides and back of the germanium crystal will eliminate most
events due to charged particles, gamma rays produced by cosmic rays
incident on the spacecraft, and Compton-scattered events in the
crystal. A plastic scintillator over the nadir-pointing surface of the
germanium crystal will provide a similar capability in the  forward
direction without significantly attenuating the gamma-ray flux from
the Moon. The gamma-ray detector will be on a short boom to further
reduce the background from the spacecraft. 
 
	The critical issue for operating a germanium detector in space
is the method of cooling. For short missions, stored cryogens such as
liquid nitrogen, solid methane, or solid argon have been proposed. For
longer missions a passive radiator, as used on the Mars Observer, or
an active device, such as a Stirling cycle cooler, is required. 
 
	We have chosen not to use a passive radiator because of the
complications in shielding the radiator from the Sun, Earth, and Moon
when the spacecraft is in a polar orbit and instead have chosen to use
the British Aerospace Stirling cycle cooler based on the Oxford
design. This closed-cycle mechanical cooler is designed for a 10-year
lifetime and has operated successfully in the laboratory without
maintenance for over three years. Two of these miniature cryocoolers
were launched on 12 September 1991 as part of the ISAMS multichannel
infrared radiometer on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, and
they are still operating successfully. Research is being done on these
coolers (1) concerning vibration, thermal performance, and reliability. 
 
	Because the germanium detector energy resolution is degraded
by vibration, we also will use a pair of these coolers with two
compressors and two expanders mounted back to back to minimize
vibration. In addition, we will use a low-distortion electronic
feedback system to minimize harmonics and a flexible vibration
decoupler between the expander cold tips and the germanium crystal. 
 
	A neutron detector is required because it provides maximum
sensitivity for hydrogen and hence water. Data from the gamma-ray
detector and the neutron detector are complementary because the
neutron flux, which produces most gamma rays, is needed to normalize
the gamma-ray line  intensities; in turn, the gamma-ray dattermine the
composition of the lunar surface and hence the moderation of neutrons
by elements other than hydrogen (2). 
 
	Three different sensors are used to measure the neutrons in
three energy ranges. Thermal (E(sub)n ~ 0.01-0.4 eV) neutrons are
measured with a bare ^3He proportional counter, epithermal (E(sub)n ~
0.4-10^3 eV) neutrons with a ^3He proportional counter wrapped with
thermal-neutron-absorbing cadmium, and fast (E(sub)n ~ 0.5-10 MeV)
neutrons with a plastic scintillator and ^3He proportional counter
operated in coincidence (3). The thermal se the epithermal sensor will
be mounted on a short boom opposite the gamma-ray detector boom to
reduce neutron backgrounds. Ratios of the three count rates are very
sensitive to the amount of hydrogen in the lunar surface (4). 
 
	The gamma-ray and neutron spectrometer will provide data on
almost all elements over all of the lunar surface. Published estimates
of the detection limits for similar detectors range from 0.016 ppm for
uranium to 1.3% for calcium (5). We estimate a hydrogen detection
limit of 100 ppm based on the neutron detector (4). The spatial
resolution is about 140 km x 140 km, which is determined by the orbit
altitude of 100 km (6). Both gamma rays and neutrons sense the
elemental composition of the lunar surface to depths of tens of
centimeters. The data from this instrument will complement the data
from the X-ray fluorescence imager (7), which has a resolution of 1 km
x 1 km for six elements. 
 
[Figure 1, which appears in the hard copy here, shows the schematics
of a genegermanium detector with a split cycle Stirling cooler
(adopted from 5) and the neutron sensors for thermal, epithermal, and
fast neutrons.] Work supported by NASA and done under the auspices of
the US DOE. 
 
    References:
 
(1) Ross R. G. et al. (1991) Advances in Cryogenic Engineering, 37, in press. 
(2) Reedy R. C. et al. (1992), this workshop. 
(3) Jenkins R. W. et al. (1970) J. Geophys. Res., 75, 4197-4204. 
(4) Feldman W. C. et al. (1991) Geophys. Res. Lett., 18, 2157-2160. 
(5) Metzger
(6) Reedy R. C. et al. (1973) J. Geophys. Res., 78, 5847-5866. 
(7) Edwards B. C. et al. (1992), this workshop. Edwards B. C.*   Ameduri F.   
     Bloch J. J.   Priedhorsky W. C.   Roussel-Dupre D.Smith B. W. 
 
    Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
 

Article: 46561
From: [email protected] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Early Robotic Lunar Missions
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:03:06 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 
[Remember I was complaining about the dearth of information on the
NASA Office of Exploration lunar missions?  Here's my contribution to
filling the gap.  Reprinted with permission from *Lunar and Planetary
Information Bulletin* No. 63, May, 1992. --WSH]
 
         BACK TO THE MOON -- EARLY ROBOTIC MISSIONS                            
 
by David C. Black and Paul D. Spudis                                            
 
NASA's newly re-established Office of Exploration is planning several
small, robotic missions to the Moon within the next three years to
begin the Space Exploration Initiative, the nation's program to return
to the  Moon and journey to Mars. The need for small, unmanned lunar
missions is both technical and programmatic. To support extended human
operations on and around the Moon we must acquire knowledge about the
distribution of lunar resources and the detailed characteristics of
the surface at proposed human outpost sites, and we must learn more
about the gravity field and global terrain. For the program to
succeed, we must demonstrate that innovative, inexpensive exploration
techniques are feasible and will produce quality results. 
 
  A Workshop on Early Robotic Missions to the Moon was held at the
Lunar and Planetary Institute, February 4-6, 1992, to assess
instruments that could be used on these early unmanned missions.
Instruments were evaluated mainly for scientific relevance and quality
of the dataset that they would return; however, their usefulness in
resource exploration and processing was also considered. 
 
  The Office of Exploration has established four themes for early
lunar robotic missions: resources, terrain--both topography (altimetry) 
and surface morphology (imaging)--gravity, and lander missions. 
 
ORBITAL AND LANDED PAYLOADS                                                     
 
Sixty instrument or mission concept proposals, about equally divided            
between orbital and landed operation, were considered.                          
 
  The Lunar Exploration Science Working Group (LEXSWG), a standing
advisory group to the Solar System Exploration Division of NASA's
Office of Science and Applications (OSSA), has developed a prioritized
list of global data sets with specific quantitative measurement
requirements that are desired from lunar orbital missions (see table).
The workshop found that there are excellent candidate instruments to
obtain these datasets. At present, there is no prioritized list of
data sets expected from payloads landed on the lunar surface (although
one is being developed by the LEXSWG). 
 
   We discussed landed payloads in the context of the proposed "common
lunar lander," Artemis. Payload capability would be only about 65 kg
for the first lander, but most proposals anticipate a 200-kg
capability, which is being investigated for subsequent versions of
Artemis. Also, the baseline design of Artemis has no provisions for
power or communications. These engineering constraints did not affect
the workshop's assessment of the various landed instruments. 
 
   While landed payloads in general are not as fully developed as
orbital payloads, a wide and interesting range of concepts offers
great scientific potential as well as being useful for exploring lunar
resources. 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                 
 
We concluded that these missions offer the opportunity to do
outstanding science, and that there are high-quality instruments that
could be flown within three years, including landed science as well as
orbital science instruments. 
 
  Flight-ready, new-generation instruments are, in general, not
immediately available, and some of the more promising instruments that
were reviewed, while not new in concept, are still at the advanced
testing and breadboard stages. This is because relatively little lunar
instrument development has been done during the past decade and a
half, so most of the state-of-the- art instruments reviewed at the
workshop were developed for nonlunar missions, or their components
have been qualified for spaceflight in other contexts. The suite of
instruments that we recommend can be flown within three years, as long
as prompt and adequate funding is made available to the instrument
teams. The Office of Exploration should take the lead in establishing
a flight instrument development program. 
 
  This instrument situation applies not only to the science payloads,
but to the resource-utilization payloads that were reviewed at the
workshop. The maturity of the proposed resource utilization concepts,
potentially quite useful to achieving the goal of a permanent human
presence, is not as advanced as those for many of the science
instruments; few have even breadboard hardware models. As with science
instruments, there is a critical need for NASA to initiate resource
instrument development. Resource utilization instruments could be
flown soon after more mature science instruments, provided that
development starts soon. 
 
  The workshop also noted a pressing requirement for mobility on early
landed science missions and that the JPL minirover is relatively
mature and addresses most mobility needs for early exploration. The
Office of Exploration should examine whether other engineering
solutions could be developed quickly enough. 
 
Orbital Mission 1  Resources                                                    
 
Three proposed instruments working together can provide global maps of
lunar chemistry and mineralogy. We believe that given adequate and
timely resources, flight-ready versions of these instruments can meet
a launch date within three years. Their combined mass, power, and
datarates are plausible for orbiters of modest capacity. 
 
  A gamma ray/neutron spectrometer with a germanium detector would
provide global chemistry with a low resolution footprint (dependent on
orbital altitude, but greater than 100 km). This is the only
instrument that senses composition to depths greater than several
micrometers. The scientific return is very high, but cooling the
detector to 70 K poses a challenge. Should this preclude a 1995
launch, a similar instrument using a sodium iodide detector could
provide useful preliminary information until the Ge detector is
launched later. 
 
  A soft X-ray fluorescence instrument, to be flown soon on the Alexis
spacecraft, can detect all major elements with high spatial resolution
(1- km pixels) to yield far more definitive constraints about regolith
characteristics, origin, and evolution than was thought possible from
an orbital mission until very recently. 
 
  A visible-infrared reflectance instrument provides information on
minerals in surface soils. A full-scale imaging spectrometer collects
image data in hundreds of spectral channels; thus, each pixel has a
single spectrum of up to 256 points. If this instrument is not ready
for flight in three years, a capable multispectral imager (of about
six channels) could be sent on an early lunar mission. One of these
instruments should be part of the first suite of instruments; the
choice between them is a matter of technical readiness. The full-scale
imaging spectrometer should be flown as early as possible. 
 
Orbital Mission 2  Terrain                                                      
 
From the Apollo program, we already have some maps of the topography
and gravity field of the Moon. However, serious gaps exist in these
data in both in coverage and quality. Instruments for a second orbiter
should obtain global gravity and terrain information to support
exploration and scientific studies. 
 
  A laser altimeter can collect global altimetry giving us an accurate
picture of the lunar figure and gross topography of large regions. A
number of the proposed altimeters have some flight hardware derived
from the Mars Observer program. Which one to select is purely an
engineering issue, as long as the instrument meets the LEXSWG
requirements (Table 1). 
 
  Mapping variations in the gravity field on both the nearside and
farside is important for operations in lunar orbit and to understand
the internal composition and state of the Moon. Because global
coverage is considered essential, two spacecraft are necessary to
determine the gravity field (the nearside can be done with one); the
second spacecraft is an extremely inexpensive "subsatellite" deployed
directly from the main orbiter. The most rapid characterization of the
global field would be achieved by a concept in which a passive laser
reflector co-orbits with the main orbiter at a relatively low altitude. 
Instrument readiness will determine which technique is selected. 
 
  Coupling imaging with altimetry and gravity will achieve excellent
science return as well as operational information that would be of
longterm use to the Exploration Initiative. The imaging system should
be capable of taking stereo imaging data at a ground resolution of 15
m/pixel; a highresolution mode (2 m/pixel) would permit detailed study
of specific sites for landed missions, either human or robotic. This
global cartographic database will serve exploration needs in both
science and operations. Several imaging systems were considered:  All
would provide quality data and all have some flight hardware available. 
 
Lander Mission  Surface Rover(s)                                                
 
Although landed payload instruments are not as highly developed, a
capable suite of instruments can be available to fly on the prototype
Artemis lander. 
 
  After considering several possibilities, the workshop concluded that
a surface rover mission is a logical candidate for the first Artemis
mission. JPL has been designing and fabricating test rovers for
several years, including a set of minirovers, two of which could fit
within the 65-kg payload of the first Artemis mission. 
 
  Several instruments could be mounted on such a rover to characterize
in some detail the compositional and physical properties of a
potential lunar outpost site. This mission could be either the prelude
to more extensive surface investigation (by robotic or human missions)
or a onetime exploration of a scientifically interesting or
operationally challenging site. 
 
  An alpha-proton backscatter spectrometer would provide important
information on the chemical composition of lunar soils. A Mossbauer
backscatter spectrometer would complement the alphaproton instrument
and provide highquality mineralogical data in addition to measurements
of soil maturity. Stereo, highresolution cameras would document
compositional analyses, permit physical characterization of the site,
and allow all of us on Earth to share the excitement of the first
return to the Moon. 
 
  These instruments are a minimum to return excellent scientific and
resource characterization data. Other instruments, in particular an
evolved gas analyzer to measure in situ concentrations of solar wind
hydrogen, should be added to the rover payload as resources permit. 
 
CONCLUSIONS                                                                     
 
Not only were logical collections of instruments identified to carry
out specific exploration themes, but we found that it's highly
probable that these instruments can be built, integrated onto a
spacecraft bus, tested, and launched within the 3-year schedule
proposed by the Office of Exploration. This is indeed a "faster,
cheaper, better" way of  exploring space. Scientists who attended
strongly endorse this new approach and stand ready to help the Office
of Exploration carry out the Space Exploration Initiative. 
 
(Dr. Black is Director of LPI; Paul Spudis is a Staff Scientist at LPI.) 
 
LEXSWG Orbital Dataset Requirements for Global Measurements
 
 Priority     Measurement               Requirement

   1         Elemental Composition.....<100-km resolution                       
                                       <20% precision                           
   2         Topography................<1-km resolution                         
                                       <+10-m vertical                          
             Gravity...................<100-km resolution                       
                                       +1 mgal                                  
   3         Mineral Composition.......<500-m/pixel resolution                  
                                       +5% abundance                            
   4         Imaging...................15+5-m/pixel resolution                  
                                       100-300-m pos. accuracy                  
   5         Magnetic..................<30-km resolution                        
                                       +0.1-nT precision                        
   6         Atmosphere................Species present, state                   
                                       <100-km resolution                       
                                       +10% precision                           
   7         Surface thermal...........<100-km resolution                       
                                       0.5 degrees K (+4 mW/m^2)

Article: 47458
From: [email protected] (Don Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.energy
Subject: Re: He3 Power Source
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:05:32 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
 
[email protected] (thomas.vandoren) writes:
 
>About 2 weeks ago I saw a series of 5 minute modern videos of great interest.
>One of them was about a proposal to use Helium3 mined from the moon as a power
>source on Earth. [...]
>
>Does anyone have more info, opinions on that proposal? [...]
>
>How hypothetical is this and is it practical?
>
>Lee
 
At present it's *very* hypothetical, and *highly* impractical. The way
to use He3 for power generation is via nuclear fusion [1]: 
 
D + He3 -> He4(3.6MeV) + p(14.7MeV)
 
However, the reaction rate parameter (related to the fusion reaction
cross section and the relative speed of the reactants) is by far the
highest for the deuterium-tritium reaction: 
 
D + T -> He4(3.5MeV) + n(14.1MeV)
 
Using D-T fusion, the major magnetic fusion experiments, in England
and the U.S., could presently only produce between 0.3 and 0.7 of the
input power needed to sustain the experiment [In fact these machines
study D-D fusion, which generates far less fusion power but only
produces about half as many neutrons, at lower energy.  D-T
experiments are planned at each facility within the next few years]. 
 
D-He3 fusion, while more environmentally benign (*much* lower neutron
production, leading to less activation, structural fatigue, etc.)
requires temperatures about ten times as great to attain similar
reaction rates. Even then, it would probably require higher plasma
densities, further complicating matters. In other words, we haven't
licked the "simple" problem yet (D-T) fusion, so don't hold your
breath waiting for the tough one (D-He3). 
 
I think the lunar "environment" is safe from marauding bands of
strip-miners. For the time being.
 
Reference:
 
[1] NRL Plasma Formulary, 1990 ed. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington DC
 
--
 Dr. Donald W. Roberts
   University of California                                      Physicist
   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory         Recreational Bodybuilder
   [email protected]                                       (better poo? :)

Article: 47504
From: [email protected] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: He3 Power Source references
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:37:58 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (thomas.vandoren) writes: 

> One of them was about a proposal to use Helium3 mined from the moon as a power
> source on Earth.  [...]
>    Does anyone have more info, opinions on that proposal?  
 
I'll repeat what I posted a month or so ago: For the latest technical
information,  see the July 1992 issue of *Fusion Technology* (vol. 21,
no. 4) is a "Special Issue on D-3He Fusion."  The August issue of 
*Fusion Technology* is another special issue on the same subject, with
more about reactors and less about the Moon.
 
The original article about this is Wittenberg, Santarius, and
Kulcinski, "Lunar Source of 3He fpr Commercial Fusion Power," *FT*
v10, p.167 (1986).
 
Bill Higgins                           | In the distant future,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | nuns will be bartenders
Bitnet:      [email protected]       | aboard starships
Internet:  [email protected]       | and Sternbach paintings
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | will hang on every wall.

Article: 2258
From: [email protected] (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Goldin's future
Date: 26 Jan 1993 11:49:38 -0500
Organization: UDSI
 
|   In fact,  the big push on now is to design probes that bypass
|   NASA infrastructure.  NO TDRSS, No SHuttle, NO JPL.  direct comms
|   back to the PI's.  
|
|Does that mean a lot of Universities can look forward to 70m class
|radiotelescopes on their campuses or are they going to stick very
|large high power antennas on future probes that go beyond Earth orbit.
|(I'll grant you easy 9600 baud cellular links to Earth orbit probes
|via Iridium or other system of your choice!).
|
|Just think, the grad students could watch HBO most of the night
|and then retarget for a high speed download from the Pluto orbiter
|during the comedy hour...
|
|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
 
I don't know about all of the probes,  But one constraint on HST is
TDRSS time is tight when the shuttle flys.   I know there are plans
for a Lunar Ultraviolet telescope.  it would be landed on a small
russian lander  and deploy a high gain antenna that one would only
need a 10 M antenna to receive with. Granted this is a little large,
but most decent universitys could support something like this.   the
plan is to have 3 10 M antennas  equi-distant on the northern
hemispere and then to have the data either disseminated on the NREN or
over SELECT as a sub-carrier. the really cool thing is they want to
make the data available to all educational institutions.  they have a
specced hardware package using apple 2's where school kids could
collect data and do analysis.  I believe the big hope is that some of
them may spot small comets or asteroids before the professional
astronomers. 
 
pat
 

Article: 58666
From: [email protected] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Clementine and the Moon (was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Date: 11 Mar 93 10:14:55 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Ron Baalke) writes: 

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Henry Spencer) writes... 
>>In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Ron Baalke) writes: 
>>>...  Henry's emphasis is more towards the Moon.  My preference
>>>is more towards the balance across the entire solar system.
>> 
>>No missions to the Moon of any kind for two decades is "balance"?!?
>>(Especially when there are still no plans for any...)
> 
> We are overdue for another lunar mission.
> JPL has proposed Lunar Observer.  It wasn't funded.  SEI proposed
> two other lunar missions.  They weren't funded.  The intent is there,
> but not the funding.  
 
Yes, Virginia, there *is* a Moon mission in the pipeline.
 
News flash: the new NASA brochure describing the Clementine mission
should be off the presses next week.  Sorry, don't have title
or serial number.
 
Clementine, which is bending metal *now* and aims for a January 1994
launch, is a 140-kg spacecraft which will orbit the Moon for two
months, then depart to fly by the asteroid 1620 Geographos in August
1994.  Some contributors to sci.space are involved in this project.
 
The major purpose of Clementine is to test SDI sensors in space. As
long as they need to fly a couple of UV-visible and IR cameras, and a
laser altimeter/LIDAR, they decided to do some lunar and asteroid
science with them.  They would like to map the Moon in twelve bands
and get as much altimetry as they can.
 
This is jointly managed by the Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization and NASA.  Spacecraft is being built by the Naval
Research Laboratory and sensors are from Livermore.  I detect no JPL
involvement (sorry, Ron).
 
-- 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [email protected]
   -   -       Internet:  [email protected]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 

Article: 58667
From: [email protected] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Clementine resolution (was Re: Lunar Ice Transport)
Date: 11 Mar 93 10:33:12 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Ross  Borden) writes: 

> In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Henry
> Spencer) writes: 
>>The lunar map situation is, roughly speaking, incredibly poor.  We have
>>much better maps of Mars than of the Moon.  The situation should improve
>>substantially with the Clementine 1 mission next year.
> 
>   Any idea what the resolution will be?
 
The elliptical orbit (400 x 8300 km) guarantees that this will vary a
lot, and my information isn't entirely clear, but it looks like a 125
meters at the best coverage, and possibly no worse than 1 km globally.
Some instruments will be able to image selected small patches at
resolutions 20 m or less.
 
Bill Higgins                           | "I shop at the Bob and Ray
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Giant Overstocked Surplus
Bitnet:           [email protected]  | Warehouse in one convenient
Internet:       [email protected]  | location and save money besides
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | being open every evening until 9."

Article: 58735
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Martin Connors)
Subject: Re: Clementine and the Moon (was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 21:10:51 GMT
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]  
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

> The major purpose of Clementine is to test SDI sensors in space. As
> long as they need to fly a couple of UV-visible and IR cameras, and a
> laser altimeter/LIDAR, they decided to do some lunar and asteroid
> science with them.
 
I heard about Clementine in detail at the 'Asteroid Hazard' meeting in
Tucson in January. The SDI people were taken to task by a noted
scientist for trying to stretch the limits of the anti-missile-missile
treaty by not testing this sort of stuff in NEO where it would be
directly forbidden, but sending the same equipment into Deep Space and
testing it there. 
 
Any knowlegible people have a comment? Apart from the moral aspects
Clementine sounds like a dream mission. 
 
Disclaimer: above may seem a bit evasive but direct quotes from what was  
said at the meeting are not appropriate in this context.
--
Martin Connors         |
Space Research         | [email protected]  (403) 492-2526
University of Alberta  |

Article: 58750
From: [email protected] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clementine and the Moon (was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Date: 12 Mar 93 18:30:19 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Martin Connors) writes: 

> In article <[email protected]> [email protected]  
> (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>> The major purpose of Clementine is to test SDI sensors in space. As
>> long as they need to fly a couple of UV-visible and IR cameras, and a
>> laser altimeter/LIDAR, they decided to do some lunar and asteroid
>> science with them.
> 
> I heard about Clementine in detail at the 'Asteroid Hazard' meeting in  
> Tucson in January. The SDI people were taken to task by a noted scientist  
> for trying to stretch the limits of the anti-missile-missile treaty by not  
> testing this sort of stuff in NEO where it would be directly forbidden,  
> but sending the same equipment into Deep Space and testing it there.
 
Yes, I understand that this is a deliberate dive through a loophole in
the ABM Treaty.  I learned this from somebody working on Clementine. 
I haven't checked the treaty's provisions to see what the details are.
 
Reviewing *Time Trax*: "In this future  | Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey    
police have gotten more technical,      | Fermilab                     
computers have gotten much smaller,     | Bitnet: [email protected]  
criminals have become much cleverer,    | Bitnet: [email protected]  
and matte painters                      | SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS  
have lost the secrets of their ancestors." --Mark Leeper 

Article: 58757
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Clementine and the Moon (was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 02:44:33 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Martin Connors) writes: 

>I heard about Clementine in detail at the 'Asteroid Hazard' meeting in  
>Tucson in January. The SDI people were taken to task by a noted scientist  
>for trying to stretch the limits of the anti-missile-missile treaty by not  
>testing this sort of stuff in NEO where it would be directly forbidden...  
 
I would be somewhat surprised if this were the case.  SDIO flies sensor
tests constantly, including several orbital tests in the last few years.
As I recall, the ABM treaty explicitly permits technology tests -- what
it forbids is testing of anything resembling an integrated operational
system.  And as far as I know, it makes no distinction between low Earth
orbit and other areas of space.
-- 
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [email protected]  utzoo!henry

Article: 58777
From: [email protected] ("F.Baube x554")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Clementine, SDIO, ABM Treaty
Date: 13 Mar 93 12:28:43 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
 
SDIO has been shooting holes in the ABM Treaty for a *long* time.
Ten years ago, after noting that the treaty prohibits tests against 
objects in space, they announced their intention to conduct tests 
against *points* in space.
 
The program's focus has changed from defending against a mass 
[Soviet] attack, to defending against a onesies-&-twosies attack.  
Such a defense could be developed, and more cheaply, using ground-
based systems, with considerably less damage to the treaty.  This 
would not be a bad idea, and not just because the US would actually 
be honoring its treaty commitments.
 
Consider that any halfway-adequate space-based ABM system is neces-
sarily an excellent anti-satellite system, and so potentially quite 
destabilizing in a crisis.
 
Relevance to sci.space ?  Hm-m-m .. maybe detour all that 
SDIO money and hardware into unabashedly civilian programs ?
-- 
* Fred Baube GU/MSFS      * We live in only one small room of the
* Optiplan O.Y.           * enormous house of our consciousness
* [email protected]       *       -- William James
* It's lo-og, it's lo-og, it's big, it's heavy, it's wood !
* It's lo-og, it's lo-og, it's better than bad, it's good !
* #include <disclaimer.h>

Article: 66716
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Lou Wheatcraft)
Subject: Orbital mechanics/DSPSE Mission
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News Client)
Organization: Barrios Technology, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 13:24:25 GMT
 
The Deep Space Program Science Experiment (DSPSE) spacecraft, also
known has Clementine, will be operated by the Naval Research
Laboratory (NRL), Naval Center for Space Technology (NCST) for the
Ballist Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) formally called the
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO).  The primary payload
consists of the sensors and associated algorithms developed by the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
 
NRL has been tasked by BMDO to be the lead organization for the DSPSE
mission including: spacecraft design, fabrication, integration, and
test; launch vehicle integration; ground command, control, and
communications; flight operations; and data distribution.  BMDO has
tasked Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to supply the
mission sensors and associated image processing algorithms, provide
integration and real-time mission support for sensor operations, and
provide support for special SDIO experiments.  The DSPSE mission is
jointly sponsored by both BMDO and NASA.  NASA�s Goddard Space Flight
Center (GSFC), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and the Deep Space
Network (DSN) have major roles in the DSPSE mission in several key
areas.  GSFC is supporting NRL in the trajectory design for the entire
mission as well as supporting the mission design, orbit determination,
and trajectory planning functions for the Earth/Moon phases of the
mission.  JPL is supporting NRL on the mission design, orbit
determination, and trajectory planning functions for the asteroid
encounter phase of the mission and is supplying up to date Geographos
orbit data during the entire mission.  JPL is also serving as the lead
NASA interface to the DSN for communications support during the entire
mission including tracking data acquisition as well as spacecraft
command, control, and communications support.  NASA has also formed a
special Science Team (ST) responsible for defining the science goals
for the DSPSE mission.  The NRL science mission planners are working
closely with the NASA ST to meet as many of these goals as possible
within the S/C design and operational constraints and overall BMDO
mission objectives. 
 
The DSPSE spacecraft will be launched into a 67 degree inclination low
earth orbit (LEO) by a Titan IIG expendable launch vehicle (ELV) from
Vandenberg AFB in early 1994.  The second stage of the Titan and the
spacecraft will be placed in a 140 x 160 NM � 5 NM (TBD) orbit.  The
duration of the LEO portion of the mission will be approximately 7.5
days after which the SRM will be fired to insert the spacecraft into a
lunar transfer trajectory (LTT).  The time in LEO along with the
phasing loop concept allows for launch delay contingencies while still
arriving at the Moon at the same time as for a nominal launch.  The
phasing loop concept also allows for minimum velocity trajectory
corrections (minimal delta V) that may be required to correct possible
attitude deviations during the SRM burn. (In addition we have a full
range of experiments scheduled to test and calibrate the mission
sensors, star tracker operations, autonomous navigation experiements,
etc.) The TTI SRM burn (3003.3 m/s) will take approximately 60 to 66
seconds to complete.  After the burn, the spacecraft will be in an
highly elliptical earth orbit with a period of � 3.2 days. (Because
the loaded weight of the spacecraft exceeds the capabilities of the
SRM, the first phasing loop is short. By using this "stunted phasing
loop" approach, we can have a heavier spacecraft, and still carry
enough additional fuel so at first perigee a 107.3 m/s delta V burn
using the 110 lb. RCS motor will place us in the proper lunar transfer
orbit.) The SRM and Interstage Adapter (ISA) will be jettisoned prior
to the first apogee. The period of the second phasing loop will be �
10.2 days with apogee occurring at lunar distance. 
 
The lunar injection maneuver will place the spacecraft into a
preliminary lunar orbit passing over the lunar south pole.  (The
trajectory is close enough to the moon so that the Moon's gravity
helps capture and thus reduce the required delta V.) The orbit
injection will be accomplished with two burns using an ~ 80%/20% split
in total �v (440.0 and 110.0 m/s delta V) with time in between for
orbit determination.  After the first burn the spacecraft will be in
an orbit with an approximate period of 8 hours.  The inclination of
the orbit will be 90��1� with reference to the lunar equatorial plane.
 NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) range and range-rate and Pomonkey
range-rate and spacecraft accelerometer data will be used by Goddard
Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) to calculate
the final orbit shaping maneuver parameters.  After approximately 24
hours (2 orbits) the second burn will place the spacecraft in the
initial mapping orbit with a periselene altitude of 425�25 km
occurring at -27� to -30� lunar latitude (TBD) on the sunlit side of
the moon with a 5 hour orbital period to allow for 131.5 orbits per
sidereal month.  This geometry allows mapping the southern polar
region at a lower altitude. Orbit shaping will be performed, as
required, to adjust periselene and orbital period to meet mission
requirements. 
 
The lunar mapping effort will consist of topographic imaging,
altimetry and multispectral imaging for mineral identification.  The
best data for the lunar mineral mapping mission presently considered
will be obtained if the solar phase angle is less than 30�.  The solar
phase angle is defined as the angle between the vector to the Sun and
the vector to the spacecraft from a point on the Moon's surface.  To
maximize the time period in which the solar phase angle is within 30�,
the plane of the lunar orbit will contain the Moon-Sun line half way
through the two-month lunar mapping period.  Therefore, insertion into
the lunar orbit has been selected so that, as the Moon-Sun line
changes with Earth's motion about the Sun, the Moon-Sun line will
initially close on the orbital plane, and then lie in the orbital
plane half-way through the mapping mission.  Assuming a two-month
mapping mission and several days checkout time in lunar orbit prior to
beginning mapping, the angle between the Moon-Sun line and the orbital
plane would close for approximately five weeks before becoming zero. 
 
The current lunar planning trajectory has this angle set at 28.3� at
insertion into lunar orbit, so that at the beginning of mapping (5
days after insertion) it will be 23.6�.  Half way through mapping it
will be -2.4� and at the completion of mapping, it will be -30.3�.  At
lunar departure (70 days after insertion) this angle will be -40.3�. 
 
After approximately 32 days, mapping operations will be temporarily
suspended for approximately one day to allow the mapping orbit to be
changed so periselene will occur over +30� to +27� lunar latitude. 
These maneuvers (111.0 and 113.9 m/s delta V)  will allow mapping of
the northern polar region at a lower altitude for the second month of
mapping. 
 
In late April 1994, two orbit adjust burns (39.0 and 38.99 m/s delta
V) will be made to change the periselene so it occurs over +48�
latitude. This orbit will be the departure orbit.  In early May 1994,
a lunar orbit departure RCS burn (540 m/s delta V) will be performed
to leave the Lunar orbit and to begin the trans-Geographos (asteroid
flyby) trajectory. 
 
================================================================
Lou Wheatcraft, Barrios Technology, Inc. 
Phone: (713)280-1892; Fax: (713)283-7903
E-Mail: [email protected]
================================================================

Article: 66804
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Richard Schroeppel)
Subject: Clementine info
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 03:24:39 GMT
 
(to Lou Wheatcraft)
Thanks for posting the Clementine information to sci.space.
I noticed one impossibility in the numbers; was wondering what's truth?
 
>   calculate the final orbit shaping maneuver parameters.  After approximately
    24 hours (2 orbits) the second burn will place the spacecraft in the
    initial mapping orbit with a periselene altitude of 42525 km occurring at
    -27 to -30 lunar latitude (TBD) on the sunlit side of the moon with a 5
    hour orbital period to allow for 131.5 orbits per sidereal month.  This
 
A circular orbit, GEO, around the Earth, with period 24 hours, is
about 45000km from the center.  A similar orbit centered at the moon
would be longer, since the moon's mass is 1/80 Earth's.  Maybe it's
supposed to be 42525 meters? 
 
Rich Schroeppel  [email protected]

    
    The next reply contains more information on the DSPSE (Deep Space
    Program Science Experiment) mission.

    This reply is an alert to DECwindows Notes users...the next reply
    is over 500 lines long.

    Regards,

    John B.

The DSPSE mission involves approximately two months in lunar orbit and then
departure on a trajectory that will cause the spacecraft to pass by the
asteroid 1620 Geographos at close range.  The time in lunar orbit provides
an opportunity to collect lunar images and data for scientific
investigation.  The close range flyby of 1620 Geographos provides an
opportunity to collect images and data from the asteroid for scientific
investigation.  The mission is composed of the following operational
phases:

�       Low Earth Orbit (LEO)
�       Lunar Transfer Trajectory:  Translunar Transfer Injection (TTI) to
        Lunar Insertion
�       Lunar Orbit
�       Geographos Transfer Trajectory: 
        -       Lunar Departure to Lunar Swingby 
        -       Lunar Swingby to Geographos Pre-Flyby
�       Geographos Pre-Flyby and Flyby
�       Post-Flyby Operations
�       Post-Mission Support

Lunar Orbit Operations:

The lunar mapping phase of the DSPSE mission is planned to last 70 days and
will include � 57 days of mapping of the lunar surface with the imaging
sensors.  The first five days in lunar orbit will be used to establish the
lunar mapping orbit and for pre-mapping mission readiness activities
including calibration of the sensors, autonomous position estimation tests,
and imaging special areas of interest on the lunar surface.  The next 27
days will be devoted to lunar mapping.  After the first lunar sidereal day
of mapping, approximately one earth day will be used to change the latitude
over which periselene occurs and the next 27 days will be devoted to the
last lunar sidereal day of mapping.  During the lunar mapping phase,
mapping will be temporarily interrupted for orbit adjustments and may be
interrupted to divert the sensors from lunar mapping to observe higher
priority targets of opportunity.

The final 8 days following mapping operations will be used for preparations
for injection into the Geographos transfer trajectory, autonomous position
estimation tests, and possible observations of targets of opportunity.  The
targets of opportunity may involve a change of orbit if adequate fuel
reserves remain.  Another possibility, without changing the orbit, is to
divert the sensors from nadir pointing to observe targets of opportunity.

The Lunar Orbit

On 21 February 1994, the lunar injection maneuver will place the spacecraft
into a preliminary lunar orbit passing over the lunar south pole.  The
orbit injection will be accomplished with two burns using an ~ 80%/20%
split in total �v with time in between for orbit determination.  After the
first burn the spacecraft will be in an orbit with an approximate period of
8 hours.  The inclination of the orbit will be 90��1� with reference to the
lunar equatorial plane.  DSN range and range-rate and Pomonkey range-rate
and spacecraft accelerometer data will be used by GSFC to calculate the
final orbit shaping maneuver parameters.  After approximately 24 hours (2
orbits) the second burn will place the spacecraft in the initial mapping
orbit with a periselene altitude of 425�25 km occurring at -27� to -30�
lunar latitude (TBD) on the sunlit side of the moon with a 5 hour orbital
period to allow for 131.5 orbits per sidereal month.  This geometry allows
mapping the southern polar region at a lower altitude.  Orbit shaping will
be performed, as required, to adjust periselene and orbital period to meet
mission requirements.

On 25 March 1994, after approximately 32 days, mapping operations will be
temporarily suspended for approximately one day to allow the mapping orbit
to be changed so periselene will occur over +30� to +27� lunar latitude. 
This maneuver will allow mapping of the northern polar region at a lower
altitude for the second month of mapping.

On 29 April 1994, two orbit adjust burns will be made to change the
periselene so it occurs over +48� latitude.  This orbit will be the
departure orbit.  On 3 May 1994, a lunar orbit departure RCS burn will be
performed to leave the Lunar orbit and to begin the trans-Geographos
trajectory.

Lighting Conditions

The lunar mapping effort will consist of topographic imaging, altimetry and
multispectral imaging for mineral identification.  The best data for the
lunar mineral mapping mission presently considered will be obtained if the
solar phase angle is less than 30�.  The solar phase angle is defined as
the angle between the vector to the Sun and the vector to the spacecraft
from a point on the Moon's surface.  To maximize the time period in which
the solar phase angle is within 30�, the plane of the lunar orbit will
contain the Moon-Sun line half way through the two-month lunar mapping
period.  Therefore, insertion into the lunar orbit has been selected so
that, as the Moon-Sun line changes with Earth's motion about the Sun, the
Moon-Sun line will initially close on the orbital plane, and then lie in
the orbital plane half-way through the mapping mission.  Assuming a
two-month mapping mission and several days checkout time in lunar orbit
prior to beginning mapping, the angle between the Moon-Sun line and the
orbital plane would close for approximately five weeks before becoming
zero.

The current lunar planning trajectory has this angle set at 28.3� at
insertion into lunar orbit, so that at the beginning of mapping (5 days
after insertion) it will be 23.6�.  Half way through mapping it will be
-2.4� and at the completion of mapping, it will be -30.3�.  At lunar
departure (70 days after insertion) this angle will be -40.3�.

Spacecraft Activities and Tests

A more detailed description of specific experiment activities is contained
in section 6.4.5.  The detailed experiment operations are described in the
Appendices.  The main spacecraft activities and tests to be performed
during the 70 day lunar mission include:

Pre-Lunar Mapping Checkout Activities: 

The initial 5 days will be devoted to establishing the proper mapping
orbit, autonomous position estimation tests, observing special areas of
interest on the lunar surface, and preparations for lunar mapping.  These
preparations include:

-    Verify the gain settings and exposure times (integration time
     settings) for each camera and assessing the ability of the on-board
     software to control these settings;
-    Determine the range of altitudes for which the laser ranging system
     can measure the range to the lunar surface;
-    Assess jitter effects from spacecraft pointing activities, filter
     wheel movement, solar array movement, and cryocoolers in a lunar mapping
     scenario;
-    Assess orbit determination accuracy and error analysis;
-    Perform Autonomous Position Estimation Experiment activities.  This
     will involve imaging the lunar limb from the dark side of the moon.
-    Perform Autonomous Operations and Scheduling including testing of
     the auto-sequence code;
-    Assess on board maintained pointing vectors to the center of the
     Moon, Sun, Earth, and each of the ground stations;
-    Rehearse lunar mapping operational readiness :
     --      Command script generation, verification, uplink, and execution;
     --      Collection of imaging data;
     --      Real-time downlink of image data during data collection;
     --      Downlink of image data stored on the Solid State Data Recorder (SSDR);
     --      Data transfer, processing, and display.
-       Collect high quality images and altimetry and downlink to the ground.

Lunar Mapping Activities:  

The formal collection of lunar mapping data is planned to take
approximately 55 days or two lunar sidereal days (1 lunar sidereal day is
approximately 27.3 earth days)].  The UV/Visible (UV/Vis) camera with 5
filters and the near infrared (NIR) camera with 6 filters will each collect
overlapping images.  Each filter is used along the satellite's ground track
such that complete mapping of the lunar surface for each of the filters of
each camera will be accomplished during the mapping operation.  The High
Resolution (HiRes) camera will make a continuous string of overlapping
images with TBD filters along the track of the satellite on the sunlit side
of the Moon.  The laser ranging system will be used when the spacecraft
altitude is below 500 km (TBD) at a pulse rate of 1 Hz (TBD) to preclude
exceeding its thermal constraints.  The LWIR camera will be used to make
images of areas of interest along the spacecraft's path, especially near
the terminator on the sunlit and dark sides to collect temperature change
information.  Since this requires terminator motion along the lunar
surface, off-nadir pointing will be required.  Complete mapping of the
lunar surface will not be accomplished with the HiRes camera, the laser
ranging system or the LWIR camera. 

Autonomous position estimation and orbit determination tests, and
autonomous operations scheduling tests flowing from the position estimation
and orbit determination tests, will be conducted during all portions of the
lunar orbit phase.  A goal is to verify the accuracy of the autonomous
position estimation and orbit determination and operations scheduling
functions during the earlier portion of the lunar orbit phase and then let
the spacecraft schedule and execute operations for one or more lunar orbits
during the later portion of the lunar orbit phase.

Preliminary Operational Scenario:  

The formal collection of lunar mapping data is planned to take
approximately 55 days or two lunar sidereal day (1 lunar sidereal day is
approximately 27.3 earth days)].  The UV/Visible (UV/Vis) camera with 5
filters and the near infrared (NIR) camera with 6 filters will each collect
overlapping images.  Each filter is used along the satellite's ground track
such that complete mapping of the lunar surface for each of the filters of
each camera will be accomplished during the mapping operation.
 
The UV/Vis and NIR cameras need to be turned on 10 minutes before imaging. 
The NIR cryocooler needs to be on 30 minutes before imaging.  In successive
orbits, the UV/Vis and NIR camera images will be taken alternatively from
-90�  to +60� and -60� to +90� latitude, when periselene is at -30�
latitude, and -60� to +90� and -90� to +60� latitude, when periselene is at
+30� latitude.  This mapping strategy is designed to save power and storage
space since there is no need to take images of polar regions on consecutive
orbits.  The integration times and gains will be varied as a function of
latitude and may be computed on board.  The time to change filters and to
dampen is assumed to be 200 -250 ms.  The UV/Vis camera has a stray light
exclusion angle of 40� (full angle).  The UV/Vis camera, along with the
star trackers will also be used to collect data for autonomous orbit
determination tests by obtaining lunar limb and star images.  There is also
a requirement to obtain frequent sensor calibration data for all the
mission sensors.  These tests will be taken for TBD minutes each orbit as
the timeline allows.

The High Resolution (HiRes) camera will make a continuous strip of
overlapping images with up to 4 filters along the track of the satellite on
the sunlit side of the moon.  Images using the HiRes camera will be taken
-90� to  +90� latitude.  The camera integration time and gains will be
varied with the latitude and may be computed on board.  The time to change
filters and to dampen is assumed to be 200 -250 ms.

The laser ranging instrument (LIDAR) will be used whenever the altitude is
less than TBD km.  The maximum usable altitude will be determined while in
Lunar orbit, but will not exceed 640 km.  During initial lunar orbit
operations, tests will be conducted to determine the maximum altitude from
which effective altimetry can be performed.  The laser ranger will be
turned on TBD minutes prior to use.  The LIDAR electronics will be turned
on 10 minutes before use and the heaters will be turned on 15 minutes prior
to use to bring laser transmitter temperature up to +25 degrees.  The laser
pulse rate will be limited to 1 Hz to keep temperatures in range.

The Long Wavelength Infrared (LWIR) camera will be used to take images of
thermal gradients occurring at the terminators.  The cryocooler for the
LWIR must be on 30 minutes prior to imaging.  The LWIR camera electronics
will be on 10 minutes prior to imaging.  Images will be taken �10� of each
terminator over the poles and the camera will be turned off between usages,
but the cryocooler will remain on between North and South pole image
sequences.  As with the NIR, UV/Vis and HiRes cameras the integration time
and gain will be varied with the latitude and may be computed on board.

During lunar mapping, the star trackers will not be used to collect
scientific data, but will be used to establish the attitude of the
spacecraft.  To meet the high accuracy pointing requirements, the
spacecraft attitude will be updated every 10 seconds during mapping.  Star
tracker images will be processed on the R3000 image processing computer and
used to update the attitude of the spacecraft.  The star trackers have a
full angle solar exclusion angle of 63� x 75� in order to resolve stars. 
One star tracker will have solar exposure during each lunar orbit and will
be powered off for this time.

Solar panel auto tracking will not be inhibited during imaging.  The exact
solar panel position management procedures to minimize jitter is TBD and
will be determined during simulations and verified during the first 5 days
of lunar orbit.

During lunar imaging, the spacecraft will use nadir pointing to meet sensor
requirements for imaging.  The best method will be finalized during the
initial 5 day operational readiness phase.  Attitude changes and attitude
updates must be scheduled with the camera image sequences and positioning
of the solar panels.  Attitude commands will be made to the guidance
software, which will generate attitude control parameters for the desired
attitude and supply these parameters to the ACS software.  Attitude
parameters will be generated based on any attitude constraints, primary
pointing requirements (nadir or earth pointing), and secondary pointing
requirements (maximizing solar incidence angle on solar arrays).  The ACS
software will compare the guidance generated attitude parameters with the
current attitude and generate the required commands to slew to the desired
attitude.  The reaction wheels or thrusters will be used for the slew
depending on the amount of slew and time available for the slew.  Slews
using the reaction wheels will take up to 10 (TBD) minutes maximum.

After lunar mapping sequences and autonomous position estimation and sensor
calibration tests are complete for an orbit, the spacecraft will dump data
to the ground using the high gain antenna.  This dump will take between
~120 to 130 minutes to completely downlink the data from the SSDR. 
Engineering data will be stored and dumped along with the image data using
the high gain antenna.  Engineering and limited image downlink via the omni
antennas during lunar mapping will be possible when orbital geometry and
ground station visibility permit.

Post Mapping Activities:

 During the 8 days following the completion of the lunar mapping there will
be time for special observations of targets of opportunity.  These
observations will provide images of lunar surface features and man-made
objects on the Moon at the Apollo, Surveyor, and Russian landing sites. 
There will be targets that will be imaged without changing the orbit. 
Other targets of opportunity may involve a change of orbit for observations
which will be done if adequate fuel remains for the Geographos transfer and
flyby. See section 6.4.7 for further details.

Prior to lunar departure there will be two orbit adjust maneuvers to
prepare for the lunar deorbit maneuver.  This will change the periselene so
that it occurs at +48� latitude.  Pomonkey will supply range-rate and the
DSN sites will supply range and range-rate data for orbit determination to
GSFC who will compute the state vector and supply it to the DMOC.  The TAMP
will verify parameters, develop command sequences, and verify these
sequences using the OTB spacecraft simulator.  The Lunar Orbit Departure
will be fully rehearsed to acquaint operations personnel with the
activities and timing of the departure RCS burn and to verify the
activities and sequences can be smoothly executed.

Ultraviolet/Visible (UV/Vis) Camera

The UV/Vis sensor is a CCD video camera with an 8-bit digitization of the
array data.  The actual ground resolution from 400 km (TBD) altitude is
between 79 to 106 meters depending on the actual amount of jitter.  Six
bandpasses are defined by filters in a six position filter wheel.  One of
the six filter wheel positions will be required for a very wide bandpass
filter, 400 to 950 nanometers (nm), so virtually the entire sensor bandpass
can be used to allow early identification of Geographos and closed-loop
tracking control.  The five remaining filter bandpasses were specified by
the NASA Science Advisory Committee (SAC) and SDIO.

The UV/Vis camera will be mounted so the 4.2� dimension of its field of
view is in the spacecraft's velocity direction (X-axis - along track) for
the lunar mapping phase and the 5.6� dimension of its field of view is
perpendicular to the spacecraft's velocity (Y-axis - cross track).

For temperature stabilization, the UV/Vis camera electronics must be turned
on for 10 minutes before it can be used to collect image data.  Radiation
exposure could damage the UV/Vis; however, the effects can be corrected on
the ground.

Near Infrared (NIR) Camera

The NIR sensor is a cooled video camera with an 8-bit digitization of the
array data.  The actual ground resolution from 400 km (TBD) altitude is
between 112 to 128 meters depending on the actual amount of jitter.  The
NIR has a six position filter wheel with the filters as shown in Table
6.2-2 selected by the DSPSE SAC and SDIO.   The NIR sensor has a mechanical
cooler (cryocooler) to bring the CCD array to a sufficiently low
temperature for operation.

For temperature stabilization, the NIR camera's cryocooler must be turned
on for 30 minutes and the camera electronics must be turned on for 10
minutes before it can be used to collect image data.

Long Wavelength Infrared (LWIR) Camera

The LWIR sensor is a cooled video camera with an 8-bit digitization of the
array data.  The actual ground resolution from 400 km (TBD) altitude is
approximately 43 meters and is fairly independent of the amount of jitter. 
The target temperature range for the LWIR is 250 to 400 K.  The sensor does
not have a filter wheel.  The LWIR sensor has a mechanical cooler
(cryocooler) to bring the CCD array to a sufficiently low temperature for
operation.

For temperature stabilization, the LWIR camera's cryocooler must be turned
on for 30 minutes and the camera electronics must be turned on for 10
minutes before it can be used to collect image data.

High Resolution (HiRes) Camera

The HiRes camera is the imaging portion of the LIDAR system.  The HiRes
sensor uses a frame transfer CCD with a micro-channel image intensifier and
uses an 8-bit digitization of the array data.  With the current jitter
constraints, the HiRes camera is expected to give a maximum ground
resolution at lunar periselene of 13 m to 30 m (short to long integration
time.) Six bandpasses are defined by filters in a six position filter
wheel.  One of the six filter wheel positions will be required for a very
wide bandpass filter, 400 to 750 nm, so virtually the entire sensor
bandpass can be used to allow early identification of Geographos and
closed-loop tracking control.  Another of the six filter wheel positions
will be opaque to protect the intensified camera from high light input when
it is not in use.  The four remaining filter bandpasses were specified by
the DSPSE SAC and SDIO.

Radiation exposure could damage the HiRes camera, however, the effects can
be corrected on the ground.  Solar illumination could also damage the HiRes
camera, so imaging should not take place if the Sun is within 2.38� from
its optical axis, and the opaque filter should be selected if the sensor is
not being used for active imaging.  For temperature stabilization, the high
resolution camera electronics must be turned on for 10 minutes before it
can be used to collect image data.

Laser Ranging System (LIDAR)

The laser ranging system comprises a Nd:YAG laser and a ranging receiver. 
The laser emits 180 millijoules per pulse at 1064 nanometers with a beam
divergence of 500 microradians.  The ranging receiver is an avalanche photo
diode with a 1 milliradian full-angle field of view.  The laser ranging
system is able to resolve range measurements to 40 meters.  Ranging
activity is desirable while the kick motor recedes from the spacecraft
during the lunar transfer trajectory, during the flyby of the asteroid, and
during any low altitude portions of the lunar orbit phase.  The laser
ranging system design has been modified to permit range measurements to
ranges of 500 km above the lunar surface.  The laser has a maximum pulse
repetition rate of 8 pulses per second, but is not expected to sustain a
pulse repetition rate greater than 1 pulse per second without thermal
problems.  

For temperature stabilization, the laser heater must be turned on for 15
minutes before it can be used for ranging.

Star Trackers

The star trackers are star imaging sensors used for 3-axis �lost in space�
attitude determination.  The star trackers consist of a S-20 photocathode
and a full frame CCD video camera with an 8-bit digitization of the array
data.  Associated with the star tracker is a set of algorithms and a
catalog of selected stars which can be used with data from the star tracker
to determine its attitude to an accuracy of 150 microradians in pitch and
yaw and 450 microradians in roll.  With a 150 millisecond integration time,
the star trackers can detect stars down to magnitude 4.5.

For reliable operation, sources such as the Sun, reflected sunlight, or
bright limbs must be excluded from a 63� by 75� region about the star
tracker�s optical axis.  Staring at the Sun may damage the star trackers,
therefore, the star tracker optics must not be exposed to direct sunlight
(sun within the 28� by 42� FOV) for a period exceeding 3 (TBD) minutes,
operating or non-operating.  The two star trackers will each have a
different line of sight selected to allow at least one of the star trackers
to determine the spacecraft's orientation while lunar mapping is being
conducted and during all other phases of the mission.  One star tracker
will have solar exposure during each lunar orbit and will be covered and
powered off during this time.  There is also a potential for radiation
exposure damage to the star trackers which may require onboard processing
to correct.

For temperature stabilization, the star tracker electronics should be
turned on 10 minutes before images are obtained for downlink.  Star tracker
imaging for attitude determination does not have to wait 10 minutes and can
be used right away.

Science Objectives:

The science objective of the mission is to obtain data useful for
scientific investigations.   These investigations involve using the DSPSE
mission sensors to image the lunar surface and the asteroid Geographos. 
The operational experiments for these events were discussed above.  This
section discusses the scientific reasons for performing these observations.

The DSPSE mission will provide an abundance of information about the
surface morphology, topography, and composition of both the Moon and
Geographos, providing an insight to their history and processes that have
shaped that history.  This information will be used to address fundamental
questions in lunar science and will contribute to significant advances
toward deciphering the complex story of the Moon.  The DSPSE mission will
also permit a first-order global assessment of the resources of the Moon
and provide a strategic base of knowledge upon which future missions to the
Moon can build.
  
Lunar Mapping

The pressing need for global mapping of the Moon, by a variety of
remote-sensing techniques, has been stressed for the last 20 years.  The
DSPSE mission begins this task allowing a global digital image model (DIM)
of the Moon to be developed.  DSPSE lunar mapping will provide improved
resolution allowing for more detailed geologic mapping and will obtain
improved spectral coverage as well as improved spectral resolution over any
previous lunar observations.  While the Galileo spacecraft provided
spectacular multi-spectral images of the lunar surface before leaving the
Earth/Moon system, the DSPSE mission offers many significant advances
relative to the Galileo data.
  
�       The pixel resolution will be at least 10 times better than
        Galileo's, providing improved resolution for unit mapping.
�       The HiRes camera images offers up to 100 times better resolution,
        allowing for detailed geologic mapping.
�       Using the various sensors, improved spectral coverage (up to 2.8
        microns) will be obtained.
�       With the increased number of filters on the sensors, improved
        spectral resolution will be possible allowing improved distinction 
        between olivine, pyroxenes, and plagioclase.

The altimetry obtained by the laser ranger, will augment the DIM by
providing a set of topographic profiles for the mid-latitude band of the
Moon.  The DSPSE data when tied to the Apollo data, will permit knowledge
of the true positions of lunar surface features to within a few hundred
meters.  Maps of the Moon made from DSPSE data will enable studies of
regional history and permit the processes of volcanism, tectonism, and
impacts that have shaped lunar history to be deciphered. 
The DSPSE data will allow several key unresolved scientific issues to be
addressed:

�       Character and evolution of the primitive lunar crust.
�       Thermal evolution of the moon and lunar volcanism
�       The impact record and redistribution of crust and mantle materials
�       Distribution of potential resources.

From the combined UV/Vis and NIR camera images, a global color map will be
formed that can be interpreted in terms of rock types.  At a minimum, it
will be possible to recognize and discriminate between the absence of mafic
minerals (pure feldspar) and the presence of orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene,
and olivine, as has been done for the near side of the Moon from
Earth-based data.  Thus on a global basis, the distribution of anorthosite,
�noritic� rocks, olivine-bearing rocks (dunites and troctolites), and
gabbros will be able to be distinguished.  For mare deposits, visible color
mapping can classify the mare in terms of titanium abundance, and element
that can be used to estimate the distribution of solar wind hydrogen, an
important lunar resource.

Combined with the knowledge of cratering and the use of basins as probes of
the crust, these data will permit the composition and petrologic structure
of the crust to be reconstructed in three dimensions.  The question of the
existence of a magma ocean, the nature of Mg-suite magnetism, the history
and extent of ancient KREEP and mare volcanism, the compositional diversity
of mare units, and the effects of cratering on the composition of the lunar
surface can be addressed.  

Topographic data from the laser ranger combined with spectral information
will allow the dynamics of large impacts ,e.g., the problem of depth of
excavation for basin-sized impacts, to be modeled.

The high-resolution images from the HiRes camera will allow the surface
processes and compositions to be studied in greater detail.  Many mare
units display significant heterogeneity, and color imaging from the DSPSE
HiRes camera images can map different color units, some of which are
perhaps related to individual mare flows.  Images of crater walls and
central peaks can not only provide high-resolution compositional data, but
permit a better understanding of the geological setting and processes that
have affected given regions, information that may prove critical to the
proper interpretation of the regional compositional information.  Finally,
the high-resolution imaging can be used to make detailed geological studies
of the areas of high scientific interest.

Finally, the tracking information received as part of the normal orbit
determination tasks during the period in lunar orbit will also be used to
provide a more accurate model of the moon�s gravitational potential.

Asteroid Flyby Objectives:

Asteroid flybys are necessary for the characterization of multiple targets
to address issues of asteroid diversity.  Flybys cannot address fundamental
questions of elemental composition (for link to meteorites) nor of internal
structure - both of these will require rendezvous missions.  The DSPSE
mission will set the stage for NASA�s Discovery Program Near-Earth Asteroid
Rendezvous (NEAR) Program.  The NASA science objectives for the Geographos
flyby are exploration and mapping.

Exploration is the key characteristic - no Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) has
ever been investigated close-up before.  The mapping will provide insight
into the geological and thermal processes characteristic of this type of
asteroid.  Other information to be gained by the flyby and resultant images
will be:

�       Volume/shape determination
�       Spin state determination
�       Multi-spectral imaging to infer compositional heterogeneity
�       Investigation of regolith with thermal imaging of the dark side.

The DSPSE data will allow several key unresolved scientific issues to be
addressed:

�       Relationship of NEAs to main belt asteroids, comets, meteorites,
        and the planetesimals that were the building blocks of the terrestrial
        planets (need diversity).
�       Characteristics of NEAs which have influenced Earth�s
        geological/biological evolution 
�       Potential of NEAs for sample return and resource utilization.
�       Surface processes of small objects with weak gravity fields.

================================================================
Lou Wheatcraft, Phone: (713)280-1892; Fax: (713)283-7903
E-Mail: [email protected]
================================================================

Article: 2830
From: [email protected] (David Anderman)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: July 4 event
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 14:28:10 GMT
Organization: Digital Circus BBS (619) 223-5348
 
For Immediate Release: June, 1994
 
 Experts Convene 4 July to Update Lunar Enterprise in the 1990s
 
Near term possibilities for humanity's prosperity using the resources
of the Moon will be investigated at a morning symposium on July 4th at
the San Francisco Airport Hilton from 9am to 11:30 am PDT. The event,
part of the 25th anniversary commemoration of the first Apollo Moon
landing, is free of admission to the public. 
 
"Lunar Enterprise in the 1990's - Power, Transportation and
Resolution", will examine some of the compelling opportunities at hand
on the surface of the Moon. Speakers will include Dan Greenwood, Chair
of the Lunar Power Systems Coalition; Michael Simon, President of
International Space Enterprises, Inc.; space psychologist and human
resources consultant Dr. Phil Harris - all of San Diego; and David
Anderman, President, California Space Development Council, and Return
to the Moon Campaign Chair. 
 
Some topics to be discussed:
 
>       Economic and environmental benefits from using the moon as a
        platform to collect and beam solar power

>       Commercial transportation ventures to return to the Moon in
        partnership with Russian industry.

>       A review of new Moon images and data obtained by the Clementine
        spacecraft, including the possibility of lunar south pole impact 
        crater ice deposits

>       Bold new international lunar exploration programs of Japan and
        Europe; involvement of China and India.

>       Space policy and resolution; cultural and psychological factors.
 
The "Space and the USA" Symposium is sponsored by Space Age Publishing
Company regularly on July 4th to celebrate and advance America's
accomplishments on the "final frontier". This is the 7th symposium in
the series. Previous gatherings have looked at the Return to Develop
the Moon; the UN International Moon Treaty; the Lunar Prospector
project; lunar geology, astronomy, and other sciences; and solar
system / interstellar projects benefiting from a lunar presence. 
 
For further information, or to RSVP, please call Steve Durst at
408/996-9210, or Bill Fennie at 808/326-2014.

    re.51 "Lunar Enterprise in the 1990s - July 4"
    
    I wish them the best, by the way has anyone heard anything else
    about the Moon's South Pole Crater "Possible Ice Deposits" ?
    Could be they are going to annouce something new at this meet.
    
    The Clementine spacecraft science team promised some concrete 
    results in a month ... That has already come and gone. This is 
    possibly the biggest thing about the Moon since Apollo, and 
    they seem to be sitting on it !!!
    
    Is it so difficult to turn a Maybe into a Yes or a No ?
    
    Gil

Article: 3161
From: [email protected] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Search for moon related topics
Date: 22 Aug 94 02:30:38 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Hakan Kayal) writes: 

> Everything what has to do
> with the exploration or utilization of the moon could be interesting for me.
> 
> What I am asking for are ideas of subjects which might be taken as the 
> subject for a doctoral of aerospace engineering in germany. It can be
> seen as a kind of brainstorming for me. Thanks.
 
Have you read the good books on this subject?  Some are mentioned in the
sci.space.tech FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) list.
 
Wendell Mendell (editor), *Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the
21st Century*, Lunar and Planetary Institute, ISBN 0-942862-02-3.
Proceedings of a 1984 conference.  You can still buy this from LPI.
 
Mendell also edited *The Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space
Activities of the 21st Century* (Volumes I and II), NASA Conference
Publication 3166.  Proceedings of a 1988 conference.  Sorry, it does
not have an ISBN.
 
Grant H Heiken, David T Vaniman, and Bevan M French (editors), *Lunar
Sourcebook, A User's Guide to the Moon*, Cambridge University Press
1991, ISBN 0-521-33444-6; hardcover; expensive. The FAQ, quoting Henry
Spencer, I think, says: "A one-volume encyclopedia of essentially
everything known about the Moon, reviewing current knowledge in
considerable depth, with copious references. Heavy emphasis on
geology, but a lot more besides, including considerable discussion of
past lunar missions and practical issues relevant to future mission
design. *The* reference book for the Moon; all others are obsolete."
 
Resources of Near-Earth Space
J. Lewis, M.S. Matthews, M.L. Guerrieri, editors
University of Arizona Press
Tucson, Arizona 1993
977 pages, hardcover
$75.00
ISBN 0-8165-1404-6
A comprehensive summary of research into resources on the Moon, 
asteroids, and Mars.
 
You also should contact the Planetary Missions and Materials Office at
NASA Johnson Space Center. They have a newsletter, *Beyond LEO*, which
covers lunar exploration and utilization.   If you use WWW, I posted
an announcement of their new home page a couple of days ago.
 
ESA had a conference in June on exploring the Moon.  It would be good 
to contact ESA and learn who is active in Europe on these problems.  
 
Bill Higgins          |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
Fermilab              |  we put a man on the Moon? -- Bill Engfer
[email protected] |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
[email protected]   |  we put a woman on the Moon? -- Bill Higgins

    reply 860.55 states that acording to Clementine data there is a
    60% chance of ICE in the Moon's south pole crater.
    
    If ice is confirmed, it means that in addition to everything else
    (Oxygen, etc) the Moon can also be used as a source of Water and 
    Hydrogen for Earth orbiting spacecraft and stations.
    
    Once the infrastructure is in place, it should cost about 30 times 
    less to bring it from the Moon rather then from the Earth.........
    
    Thus for example reusable Orbit Transfer Craft could be re-fueled
    in LEO, and used to boost satellites to GEO and back to LEO if need 
    be. Planetary craft that re-fueled in LEO would get to their 
    destinations that much faster/cheaper. And so on.
    
    I don't have the exact numbers, but it looks to me that Lunar Ice
    (all by itself) would more then pay for a maned Lunar Base.
    
    Gil

    re .54
    
    It would be an exciting development if this panned out but don't forget
    that the phrase "once the infrastructure is in place" hides multi-billion
    dollar (?) capital investments that in turn mean lengthy payback periods...
    (in an era when 1 year is forward looking and 4 years is impossibly remote
    future - OK, pardon my cynicism).
    
    Anyway I would like to see some real figures. In particular you need to
    look at the actual market value of future payloads. Unfortunately (?)
    satellites are lasting longer anyway and I doubt planetary science launches
    would contribute much cost justification (but could certainly benefit
    if the infrastructure is there anyway e.g. go back to Centaur upper
    stage instead of using IUS).
    
    Current GEO satellites seem to use fuel other than LOX/LH2 which means
    even if we can easily move them back to GEO the propellants need to be
    brought from Earth. Perhaps GEO satellites could be engineered to use
    LOX/LH2. Or maybe there are the right volatiles on the moon for
    satellite propellant? Or maybe satellites want to use more exotic
    technologies like arcjet or ion propulsion?
    
    Calculations on how much satellite life time is extended by on orbit
    refuelling and how much is saved by retrieval or on orbit repair are
    complicated.
    
    The biggest payoff might be in space station supplies (if it ever gets
    up there). Perhaps food could be grown on the moon (indoors
    hydroponically) and waste returned there. While this could all be done
    on the station it does cut down on station size and overheads (and
    reduces the short term requirements for rigorously closed ecological
    systems). It might also allow a higher orbit for the station which would
    reduce drag.
    
    What is the delta-V from the lunar surface to lunar orbit and then on
    "down" to LEO?
    
    Anyone care to explore what kind of infrastructure would be needed on
    the moon? How many launches to set up? Can it operate unattended (or
    e.g. using telepresence)?

    I have a general question about lunar bases etc...
    
    In the apollo era the returning apollo capsule came in at a fairly
    hefty pace (drawn in by the earths gravity I assume). There was never
    any intention back then of braking into orbit and then descending it
    was a one way trip.
    
    assuming we set up on the moon for producing consumables in LOE, what
    is the cost in engineering a spacecraft to brake into orbit around
    Earth. I have never seen that discussed anywhere...
    
    
    thanks in advance.
    
    
    Roger

It probably isn't too much more since we've proven that aerobraking can be used.
You might even use the dip into the atmosphere to gather up some consumables as
you go...

    Actually, I recall seeing a � hour show on NASA Select once
    on the return technique of the Apollo capsule, where they 
    explained the scheme where when the capsule first encounters
    atmospheric interface at roughly 400,000', it penetrates a little
    and then skips back out to cool off, and then re-enters a little
    further around the earth to eventually land at the target landing
    area. So the Apollo capsule was not designed to re-enter in one
    continous entry path to earth. The heat shield would heat up too
    much. The path back from moon goes roughly � way around the earth
    taking into account the earths rotation for targeting the landing
    site. Thus the angle of the skip to kill some speed is quite critical
    to avoid bouncing too high or coming in too steep, and missing the
    landing site.
    
    Bob

  Another thing about Apollo was that the 8G's they pulled on reentry were not
really necessary. A spacecraft could be designed that would be less, but it
would be heavier and/or need more time to slow down, perhaps a 2nd pass. 

  Since they knew that only test pilots and extremely fit scientists would be
flying in Apollo they felt free to push the limits on what a human could handle
during reentry to save on weight but if a broader selection of people were
going they would probably design for lower G's on reentry.

  The high G load was one of the major reasons the Apollo was not considered
for a space station rescue system.

  George

    Also, the Apollo CM had a minimal lift capability (0.3 L/D), which
    would have allowed some crossrange adjustments on entry had they
    been deemed important.

    The early Apollo (pre-lunar landing, Army) proposals from Martin,
    Convair, and General Electric devoted a lot of resources to studying
    various types of conical and lenticular lifting reentry vehicles.