Conference 7.286::space

794.0. "Spaceport Alabama" by VERGA::KLAES (All the Universe, or nothing!) Mon Apr 13 1992 18:02

Article: 1940
From: [email protected] (GLYNN WILSON)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space
Subject: Alabama university considers rocket launch program
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:05:24 GMT
 
	GULF SHORES, Ala. (UPI) -- To speed up commercial applications
of experiments in space and to get around stiff government regulations, 
officials from the University of Alabama at Huntsville want to launch 
rockets from an oil platform just off the beach in the Gulf of Mexico. 

	Environmentalists along the coast call the proposal crazy,
however, in light of an ongoing battle to stop other potentially
devastating developments and military utilization of the gulf. 

	Dr. Francis Wessling, a professor of mechanical engineering
and associate director of the UAH Consortium for Materials Development
in Space, said Alabama, from Huntsville to Mobile, could become ``the
commercial space hub of America,'' supplanting government launching at
Cape Canaveral, Florida, and White Sands, New Mexico.

	He called the proposal, only in its infancy stages,
``Spaceport Alabama: The Window to Commercial Space.'' 

	Jim Trapp, president of the Gulf Coast chapter of Save
America's Valuable Environment, called the proposal ``another crazy,
greedy idea by people who do not understand the pressure the planet
and the Gulf of Mexico are already under.'' 

	SAVE was one of several environmental groups that recently
fought successfully against the Navy's proposal to test an
electromagnetic pulse simulator off the coast of Alabama. The
simulator would test ships to see how they functioned under the
effects of electromagnetic impulses similar to those generated by a
nuclear blast. 

	Wessling said the rocket launching idea ``would have very
little environmental impact'' because rocket motors using only solid
fuel would be used. He said no noxious gas exhaust would be emitted,
but there would be emissions of hydrochloric acid and aluminum oxide
particles. 

	Wessling said the demand for private rocket launchings is
being driven by the backlog in government scheduling and delays at
launch sites at White Sands and in south Florida at the Eastern Test
Range. Cost is another factor. 

	``We think we can beat the government's cost,'' he said.

	There are stiff government rules to deal with in any private
launch at government facilities. 

	``Some of the government's safety rules were written for
different kinds of systems than we ever intend to fly,'' Wessling
said. ``We have to go through certain rules that shouldn't apply. We
think we can streamline the operations.'' 

	The proposal calls for launching sounding rockets from a
portable oil platform. The rockets would go up 200 miles. 

	Wessling said there should be no problem with rockets hitting
population centers such as Pensacola, Fla., or Mobile, Ala. 

	``The Eastern Test Range is near Cocoa Beach and only 60 miles
from Orlando,'' he said. 

	The rockets provide seven to 14 minutes of low gravity time to
conduct biological reaction experiments on cell formation, metal
melting, plant nutrient uptake and other processes. Wessling said
products could be developed such as new drugs for people, new metal
combinations for machine tools, as well as polymer thin films and foams. 

	He also said orbiting satellites could be launched.

	Wessling said the proposal is only on the drawing board for now.

	``We don't even know all the wickets we have to go through
yet,'' he said. ``The state is going to be involved, we don't know
exactly how. The Department of Transportation will have to do some
licensing, and we don't know what all they will require. We just need
to do some studies to find out.'' 

	The original proposal called for a site 10 miles from the
beach, although Wessling said he would like to see it go in state
waters ``within 3 miles of the beach.'' 

	The university is a not-for-profit institution, although
Wessling said consideration is being given to setting up a for-profit
consortium including the university, state organizations and private
industry. 

	``We are not just doing this for the money, but to make
launches faster and cheaper for whoever comes forward,'' he said.
``One way of doing that is making sure launches are less complicated
and less expensive.'' 

re .0
    
>	Wessling said the rocket launching idea ``would have very
>little environmental impact'' because rocket motors using only solid
>fuel would be used. He said no noxious gas exhaust would be emitted,
>but there would be emissions of hydrochloric acid and aluminum oxide
>particles. 
    
    I wonder what his definition of noxious is, given that hydrochloric
    acid is deemed not to be.
    
    Surely LH2/LOX would be much more environmentally friendly. Presumably
    the comment "using only solid fuel" is contrasting solid fuels with
    unspecified liquid fuels other than LH2/LOX.

I got a chuckle out of this too -- talk about putting a "spin" on things.


Compared with hypergolic fuels (like those used in Titans and the RCS/OMS
of the Space Shuttle), solid fuels are possibly less damaging to the
environment.


- dave

    Yeah, the bs alert went off when I read .0
    
    Hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide combinations are going to produce mostly
    water and nitrogen oxides, things that occur naturally in the
    atmosphere (although not in the local concentration that would result
    from a launch).
    
    Polybutadiene based solids will also produce water and nitrogen oxides
    AND hydrochloric acid and aluminum oxide. HCl is somewhat nastier than
    the nitrogen oxides, and aluminum oxide is a solid so there will be
    some particulate matter dumped in the stratosphere. There is very
    little mixing between the tropo- and stratospheres, so relatively
    little particulate matter gets transported unless there is some major
    event, like a volcano, large forest fire or nuclear explosion.
    
    NASA was sufficiently concerned about the impact of this that they flew
    RB-57Ds through the exhaust plumes of several Titan 3 launches prior to
    the first shuttle to take measurements.
    
    I suppose you could claim that in the event of a ground accident that
    solids are safer, but that is a lot of 'spin'.
    
    gary